From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Oct 31 19:22:48 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:22:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] DNSSEC discussion starting to get interesting
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E590A7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Were you spending your Halloween thinking about critical internet resource? I thought you were! 

The political issues around root signing are beginning to be more widely recognized. On the IGP blog, Brenden Kuerbis analyzes a paper released two days ago by Nominet UK – the ccTLD for Great Britain – on the issue of root signing for DNSSEC. See here: HYPERLINK "http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/31/3325162.html"http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/31/3325162.html 

 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.13/1099 - Release Date: 10/30/2007 10:06 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071031/0147af7c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071031/0147af7c/attachment.txt>

From email at hakik.org  Mon Oct  1 00:34:05 2007
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:34:05 +0600
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
  "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
Message-ID: <200710010444.l914i2mv004942@bids.sdnbd.org>

With our eyes from a developing country like Bangladesh, we see 
nothing but access as the CIR, though as a user I understand, IPv4/6, 
BGP, multi-casting, root-server, etc. are essential elements of CIR. 
But, to me if I am not connected at all, what the benefit I will be 
obtaining from the Internet. Most of the time, either my ISP's server 
remains down or can not resolve DNS, or my dial-in telephone contains 
noise to make proper handshake, or my so-called broadband line 
remains snapped or their server remains down, or our lone SEA-ME-WE4 
connection becomes unavailable. In these perspectives, how to proceed 
for an effective infrastructure, a big question always remain.

Thanking you,
Hakik

At 01:14 AM 9/30/2007, Paul Wilson wrote:
>Dear all
>
>this is a question I just posted in a couple of places already, and 
>i've had a lot of interesting responses.  I'd appreciate your thoughts as well.
>
>(with apologies and thanks to those who've replied already!)
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul
>
>>For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? Can
>>you list your "top three" in this category?
>>
>>There is a lot of talk today about "critical internet resources" but not
>>much agreement on what they are. I'm interested to know what people think
>>is most critcial to their use of the Internet.
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
>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
>


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dan at musicunbound.com  Mon Oct  1 01:41:34 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:41:34 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info>
 <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>

Just a few points of substance here:


At 12:13 PM +0200 9/30/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ... And you still seem to miss the difference between
>identifiers and actual content

The whole issue with gTLDs is that these identifiers also contain
expressive characteristics.  And these expressive characteristics are
precisely what might come into play in rejections based on "morality" or
trademarks, etc.

In this case, the distinction between identification and expression is
hopelessly blurred, and the expressive-related policies could easily be
extended to other forms of expression.

This is a dangerous precedent to set in any venue of global authority.



>I would be arguing that for most parts of the world the result of a
>global Internet as we know it, even in a scenario where you'd not get
>info.abortion and you'd be forced to use abortion.info, is much more
>freedom than they ever knew before. Compare this with the scenario where
>you have info.abortion, but China and the Arab world break out of the
>international governance and root server systems. Which of the two is
>more likely to lead to a free and peaceful global society?

Why should we assume that a free global society is at all likely to be
"peaceful" in the foreseeable future?  If we have to choose between order
and freedom, I'll choose freedom, and we can work on the order over time.
If we choose order by constraining freedom, we may lose that freedom
indefinitely if not permanently.  To get to "free and peaceful" seems
rather far away right now.  I think it is more prudent to assume that
combination will be beyond reach for quite some more time.

If the price of keeping China et al. from breaking out of IG and the RSS is
to constrain freedoms elsewhere, I'm not sure this is an advantageous
tradeoff.  Especially because there is still no guarantee that they will
not break away anyway, and then we have lost both network integration *and*
freedom of expression.

Just where does one draw the line when one is appeasing authoritarian
powers?  My preference is to draw it at the very outset before one appeases
them at all.



 And do you
>really think that a free and peaceful global society should or even
>could be just an expanded replica of late 20th century Western
>societies?

Hardly, IMHO.  However, disposing of essential freedoms would be tantamount
to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  If the choice is between
heartless capitalism and centralized authoritarianism, then let me just
shoot myself right now, as neither is good enough to respect human beings
because they both create powerful governing elites that tend to oppress or
discard the bulk of society.  We're looking for a third way here.



 Shouldn't it rather be a meeting point among all different
>sets of values existing in the world, including the ones we don't like
>for ourselves?

That's what happens when you protect freedom of expression.  When you start
rejecting gTLDs based on expressive-related criteria, you are immediately
beginning to preclude some values (that some or many or even most may not
like) from being present in the discussion.

But beyond that, perhaps we need not force anyone into the same room with
everyone else.  If some parties do not want to hear certain expression,
then we may allow them to leave the room.  That would be preferable to
allowing them to confine expression among others in the room.

If some parties don't want a common meeting point that includes values that
they don't like for themselves, then as long as they have freedom of action
we cannot force them to hear everything.  And it is unacceptable to place
constraints on our own expression simply to get them to stay -- that simply
makes us like them, and that's no progress.  In fact, it's dangerous.

They are ready to walk away if it is not to their advantage.  If we insist
upon doing anything necessary to get them in the room together, they will
use their willingness to walk away to trash our freedoms inside the room.
Let them go, for now, if they must.

There is no solution to the "free and peaceful" mission that I can see on
any horizon.  If we are ever to find one, it will not be by giving up the
"free" at the outset.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Mon Oct  1 05:41:37 2007
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:41:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Closure of ICTRC - Petition
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0709290412jfe7af26s4c10fb4ce58b3b9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200709281732.l8SHWZG1030256@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
	 <ecb172de0709290412jfe7af26s4c10fb4ce58b3b9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0710010241q4710ac93uf53346d4c1abbfb7@mail.gmail.com>

2007/9/29, CAFEC <cafec3m at yahoo.fr>:
>
> Please ,
>
> Can you add among 27 organisations SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN : CENTRE AFRICAIN
> D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
>
> best regards
>
>
> 2007/9/28, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam <wsis at ngocongo.org>:
> >
> > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
> > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
> > people]
> >
> > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation
> > of this message!
> > _______________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >  Dear all,
> >
> >
> >
> > As previously announced, the signature process of petition on the
> > closure of the Offices of ICTRC in Tehran is now finalised. The letter
> > collected 27 NGO entities and 14 individuals, all involved in the WSIS
> > process.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please check out if I did not miss any of the signatures you sent me.
> >
> > And *feel free to send any additional last minutes signature* (the
> > document will be circulated early next week).
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best and thanks for your support,
> >
> >
> >
> > 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* <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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> TEL:00243998983491
> EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com




-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/33d34ba2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/33d34ba2/attachment.txt>

From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 06:45:30 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:45:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>
Message-ID: <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

> The whole issue with gTLDs is that these identifiers also 
> contain expressive characteristics.  And these expressive 
> characteristics are precisely what might come into play 
> in rejections based on "morality" or trademarks, etc.

> In this case, the distinction between identification and 
> expression is hopelessly blurred, and the expressive-related 
> policies could easily be extended to other forms of expression.



You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs some
consideration and I still just don't see the logic.

Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from doing
whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by others.

This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold any
society together.

Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to others'
sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or
intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different matter.



The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new gTLDs result
in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual reality
of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection between
domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.


* Does the BBC only contain content about BBCs? Or subjects beginning with B
or C?
* Does Amazon only contain information on one of the world's largest rivers
and its basin?
* Does Facebook merely contain pictures of faces and books?


There is nothing to stop anyone from posting what they want at whatever
domain they want. At least not technically. And any rules that might apply
in different countries are going to apply to one domain name as much as they
do to any other.

The way Internet technology is moving is toward making each block of content
its own identifier - tags, search engines, RSS feeds. All the evidence
points to the fact that if something is compelling enough, it will be found
and repeated and linked to and mirrored - to the extent that many people
will read it without even knowing on which domain name it was originally
posted. 


The reason why there will be restrictions on some new gTLDs is for the same
reason you don't walk past a shop called "Shit" on the High Street. And the
same reason you can't purchase Al-Qaeda training videos in your local
supermarket.

I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put into
shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the ICANN
community over several years when the really important discussion to be had
is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.



Kieren


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Mon Oct  1 08:48:24 2007
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>
 <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710010836400.23903@osaka.law.miami.edu>

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define censorship 
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of: 
"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can suppress 
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we VERY 
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed to 
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow not 
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk of 
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't censorship 
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one articlute a 
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic rule 
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought 
not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although 
some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of imminent 
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new gTLDs result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ so 
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the governmental 
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which is 
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the reality 
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to be had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely whisk 
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above seriously, 
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things, 
control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally get 
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the people 
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is small, 
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to 
deal with.

--
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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  1 08:50:22 2007
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <398738.18717.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Kieren,

I'd like to discuss your concept of "inevitable
policies".

For years we have had the GAC and WIPO pushing for the
adoption of protections for IGOs.  Just yesterday, the
GNSO Council received from ICANN Staff a Draft IGO
Domain Name Resolution Procedure which will be taken
up for discussion at the 11 October Council meeting.

You may be of the view that the proposed IGO policies
are "agreed to by large sections of the ICANN 
community over several years" as they have been
ardently backed by the GAC, by WIPO, by the IPC, and
others and as such are "inevitable" given the growing
power of governments within ICANN.

The proposed policy allows for an objections based
approach for strings at the top level in the event
that an IGO asserts that a TLD will be in conflict
with the name or abbreviation of the IGO protected
under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, an
international treaty.

At a surface level this seems like a reasonable
inevitable policy... but let's dig deeper.

Let's just imagine for a moment what our world would
look like if the policy had been put into place back
in the days when we only had com/net/org as gTLDs. 
Along come the new boys on the block -- .INFO and .BIZ
-- but wait!  An objection is filed...

The argument is put forward that BIZ will violate the
terms of Article 6ter, and that the Internet community
will be devastated by the rampant confusion that will
occur should BIZ ever find its way into the root.

As "everybody knows" BIZ is the 6ter protected
acronym/abbreviation for the BANK FÜR INTERNATIONALEN
ZAHLUNGSAUSGLEICH -- or (in English, the Bank for
International Settlements, a distinguished IGO), so we
can't possibly allow BIZ to enter into the root...
just think of the havoc that would ensue!  

Well here it is several years later, with millions of
registrations in .BIZ, and not a single complaint of
confusion.

Policies should never be regarded as "inevitable" as
some policies, frankly, can be rather stupid.

regards,
Danny

--- Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

> > The whole issue with gTLDs is that these
> identifiers also 
> > contain expressive characteristics.  And these
> expressive 
> > characteristics are precisely what might come into
> play 
> > in rejections based on "morality" or trademarks,
> etc.
> 
> > In this case, the distinction between
> identification and 
> > expression is hopelessly blurred, and the
> expressive-related 
> > policies could easily be extended to other forms
> of expression.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I have given these claims about human
> rights and new gTLDs some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
> 
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from
> being approved? In one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as
> stopping people from doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that
> will be taken by others.
> 
> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as
> the rules that hold any
> society together.
> 
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want
> without regard to others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to
> not be prosecuted or
> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a
> quite different matter.
> 
> 
> 
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing
> certain new gTLDs result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a
> certain topic?
> 
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.
> 
> This human rights argument appears to completely
> ignore the actual reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively
> little connection between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is
> frankly bizarre.
> 
> 
> * Does the BBC only contain content about BBCs? Or
> subjects beginning with B
> or C?
> * Does Amazon only contain information on one of the
> world's largest rivers
> and its basin?
> * Does Facebook merely contain pictures of faces and
> books?
> 
> 
> There is nothing to stop anyone from posting what
> they want at whatever
> domain they want. At least not technically. And any
> rules that might apply
> in different countries are going to apply to one
> domain name as much as they
> do to any other.
> 
> The way Internet technology is moving is toward
> making each block of content
> its own identifier - tags, search engines, RSS
> feeds. All the evidence
> points to the fact that if something is compelling
> enough, it will be found
> and repeated and linked to and mirrored - to the
> extent that many people
> will read it without even knowing on which domain
> name it was originally
> posted. 
> 
> 
> The reason why there will be restrictions on some
> new gTLDs is for the same
> reason you don't walk past a shop called "Shit" on
> the High Street. And the
> same reason you can't purchase Al-Qaeda training
> videos in your local
> supermarket.
> 
> I can't for the life of me understand why so much
> effort is being put into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large
> sections of the ICANN
> community over several years when the really
> important discussion to be had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are
> implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> Kieren
> 
> 
>
____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the
> list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kwgr at gmx.de  Mon Oct  1 08:58:23 2007
From: kwgr at gmx.de (klaus grewlich)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:58:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710010836400.23903@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info>
 <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>
 <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710010836400.23903@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <20071001125823.104760@gmx.net>

Dear Colleague,
I did not have time for many months to look into the governance-mails. Could You be so kind to send me an article or a statement of Yours that would bring me up to the latest legal and political developments in the field "Internet governance and Icann".
I apologize for asking for this help (but I have to teach a course in the framework of the Bonn-"Master of european regulation of network industries" (MERIN)
Best wishes
Yours
Klaus

Ambassador Prof. Dr. Klaus W. Grewlich
Deutsche Botschaft
ul. Razzakova 28
720040 Bishkek
Republic of Kyrgyzstan
(Privatpost: Diplo-Kurier
Botschaft Bischkek
11020 Berlin)
Tel: (996) (312) 905000
e-mail: kwgr at gmx.de




-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:48:24 -0400 (EDT)
> Von: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
> Betreff: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
> some
> > consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
> >
> > Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
> > sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from
> doing
> > whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
> others.
> 
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define censorship 
> in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of: 
> "the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can suppress
> speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we VERY 
> strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed to 
> muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.
> 
> The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow not 
> cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk of 
> 'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't censorship
> when it clearly is.
> 
> To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one articlute a
> 'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
> speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic rule 
> that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought 
> not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although 
> some have tried.
> 
> > This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold
> any
> > society together.
> >
> > Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
> others'
> > sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or
> 
> It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of imminent 
> physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
> 
> You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.
> 
> > intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
> matter.
> >
> >
> >
> > The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new gTLDs
> result
> > in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?
> 
> No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ so 
> the question is at which level will the decision be made, the governmental
> (or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
> large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
> decide these questions.
> 
> >
> > And the answer to this is quite clearly no.
> 
> And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which is 
> why history teaches us that the power question is central.
> 
> >
> > This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
> reality
> > of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
> between
> > domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.
> >
> >
> 
> The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the reality
> of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend someone.
> 
> I could go on, but I think you get the point....
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
> into
> > shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
> ICANN
> > community over several years when the really important discussion to be
> had
> > is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
> >
> >
> 
> It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely whisk
> away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above seriously, 
> all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
> teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
> chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things, 
> control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally get 
> more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the people
> who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is small, 
> and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to 
> deal with.
> 
> --
> 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

-- 
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört?
Der kanns mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 09:36:37 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 14:36:37 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710010836400.23903@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710010836400.23903@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <00d801c80430$17e0f820$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define 
> censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you 
> approve of: "the heckler's veto"


I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a reasonable review of what I
wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.

I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine" and "heckler's veto" to
undermine a point of view without engaging on the actual points but
unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and aggressive response to
one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.

And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the concept of "well meaning
censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so silly.



I think there are two broad points here:

* The Internet is global, and so any attempt to impose one prevailing
philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone would do well to remember
that.

* The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a dissenting view attacked
with little or no effort to review what they actually said is never going to
provide any useful conclusion, and so all its resulting fire and heat will
end up being ignored. 



Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in a later post I see,
arguing that there is the possibility for a huge number of new gTLDs to be
blocked.

I have to confess this is my concern as well - which is why it is vital that
the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when it is queried is where
the attention should be focused.

But all the while that the proponents of a far less intellectual-property
view of the world spend shouting and refusing to engage, the more the
underlying system will take on the characteristics of those that seek to
build, rather than impose, consensus.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from
doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define censorship 
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of: 
"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can suppress 
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we VERY 
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed to 
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow not 
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk of 
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't censorship 
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one articlute a 
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic rule 
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought 
not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although 
some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold
any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of imminent 
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new gTLDs
result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ so 
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the governmental 
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which is 
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the reality 
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to be
had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely whisk 
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above seriously, 
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things, 
control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally get 
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the people 
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is small, 
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to 
deal with.

--
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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Mon Oct  1 09:51:59 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 09:51:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
Message-ID: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>

Kieren,

I appreciate your engagement even if your use of the word 'inevitable'
was unfortunate; since very little is truly inevitable in the course of
human events.   

As you may recall folks, including myself and Milton, have developed
and advocated 'regular, transparent and objectuve' procedures for gTLD
allocation for some time, and offered concrete suggestions on how those
could be implemented. As have the OECD.

I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a
beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.  

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; best of luck to
ICANN implementing a 'regular, transparent and objective' method for
measuring beautiful gTLDs and not so beautiful gTLDs.

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 9:36:37 AM >>>
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define 
> censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you

> approve of: "the heckler's veto"


I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a reasonable review of what
I
wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.

I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine" and "heckler's veto"
to
undermine a point of view without engaging on the actual points but
unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and aggressive response
to
one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.

And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the concept of "well
meaning
censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so silly.



I think there are two broad points here:

* The Internet is global, and so any attempt to impose one prevailing
philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone would do well to
remember
that.

* The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a dissenting view
attacked
with little or no effort to review what they actually said is never
going to
provide any useful conclusion, and so all its resulting fire and heat
will
end up being ignored. 



Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in a later post I
see,
arguing that there is the possibility for a huge number of new gTLDs to
be
blocked.

I have to confess this is my concern as well - which is why it is vital
that
the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when it is queried is
where
the attention should be focused.

But all the while that the proponents of a far less
intellectual-property
view of the world spend shouting and refusing to engage, the more the
underlying system will take on the characteristics of those that seek
to
build, rather than impose, consensus.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In
one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people
from
doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define
censorship 
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of:

"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can
suppress 
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we
VERY 
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed
to 
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow
not 
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk
of 
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't
censorship 
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one
articlute a 
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic
rule 
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought

not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although

some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that
hold
any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted
or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of
imminent 
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new
gTLDs
result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ
so 
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the
governmental 
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which
is 
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly
bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the
reality 
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend
someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to
be
had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely
whisk 
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above
seriously, 
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things,

control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally
get 
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the
people 
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is
small, 
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to

deal with.

--
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Oct  1 10:27:47 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon,  1 Oct 2007 16:27:47 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet
 resource"?
In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> (message from Paul
	Wilson on Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:14:25 +1000)
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
Message-ID: <20071001142747.6DA272202D2@quill.bollow.ch>

Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:

> > For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? Can
> > you list your "top three" in this category?

Sorry, I can see only two _critical_ _internet_ _resources_.

1. Internet protocol address numbers.

2. TLD nameservers.

Of these, TLD nameservers do not present a problem that needs to be
talked about at the IGF because if for any given TLD there is a
nameserver resource shortage, the registry in charge of that TLD will
be able to do whatever it takes to fix that problem, and it has a
sufficiently strong economic incentive to do so.

Therefore, in my opinion, what the "critical internet resources"
panel should focus on is the transition from IPv4 to a layer-three
protocol which does not have this problem, such as e.g. IPv6.


I did not list e.g. DNS root-servers because they're simply not
_critical_ _internet_ _resources_.  If it should happen that the
existing root-servers suffer from overload, or are DOSed, or
whatever, and those who operate them don't adequately expand their
capacity, ISPs can without much trouble set up root-servers of
their own for the benefit of their customers.  Therefore, the
DNS root-servers, simply don't qualify as _critical_ internet
resources.


"Electricity", while certainly important for the operation of the
internet, is not something that I would call a "critical internet
resource", both because it is not specific to the internet, and
because given sufficient financial resources generating electricity
is not a problem that would require international coordination.

Similarly, "bandwidth" and many other topics that have been brought
up IMO do not qualify as "critical internet resources" because in
those areas the problem is primarily about people in some geographic
regions lacking the ability to collectively pay for costs of the
increase in living-standards consisting in having enough internet
bandwidth etc.

This category of topics belongs into a "information society economics"
panel, workshop or whatever, which I would be happy to organize for
the 2009 IGF, but please, the issue of transitioning to a layer-three
protocol with enough address numbers that everyone can get some
globally-unique ones is important and should not be diluted by talking
about electricity, general development economics or other topics which
are also important but concerning which international coordination is
not so critical to the future of the internet.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Oct  1 10:46:31 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:46:31 +0800
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <20071001142747.6DA272202D2@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <20071001142747.6DA272202D2@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <47010847.7040401@Malcolm.id.au>

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> This category of topics belongs into a "information society economics"
> panel, workshop or whatever, which I would be happy to organize for
> the 2009 IGF, but please, the issue of transitioning to a layer-three
> protocol with enough address numbers that everyone can get some
> globally-unique ones is important and should not be diluted by talking
> about electricity, general development economics or other topics which
> are also important but concerning which international coordination is
> not so critical to the future of the internet.

I agree.  Responses to this thread have broadened the range of 
definitions of critical Internet resources to the extent that the term 
no longer bears any useful meaning at all.  One more cynical than I 
might even attribute this to an agenda to sabotage the hard-won 
inclusion of this topic on the Rio agenda.  Without going that far, I do 
think that to allow the CIR session to lose focus would leave those who 
called for its inclusion unsatisfied, with predictable results.  I don't 
see the need for us, of all people, to continue to beat around the bush 
here.  As we all really know, CIR essentially means the technical 
coordination functions of ICANN and the RIRs.  I can't see that coming 
up with new definitions of what else it *could* mean serves any useful 
purpose.

-- 
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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Oct  1 11:04:23 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:04:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5858E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> 
> I would be arguing that for most parts of the world the result of a
> global Internet as we know it, even in a scenario where you'd not get
> info.abortion and you'd be forced to use abortion.info, is much more
> freedom than they ever knew before. Compare this with the scenario where
> you have info.abortion, but China and the Arab world break out of the
> international governance and root server systems. 

Vittorio, they already have broken out. Both are systematically blocking URLs, and they are doing so based on the _content_ of domains regardless of whether they are second level or top level or n-level. 

This is what I find difficult to understand about your position. Your arguments in favor of TLD regulation provide no basis for opposing the other censorship scenarios you discuss. In another message Michael Froomkin carefully dissected Kieren's view, which is the same as yours, and pointed out that any justification of content regulation based on "avoiding offense" leads directly to this result (blocking). Clearly, the Arab states and China govt feel "offended" by certain kinds of expression. 

The content - label issue is a distinction without a difference when it comes to the justification for censorship. The only important difference is that governments have a ready means of acting as gatekeepers for top-level labels, so we are likely to get censorship there, especially when people from civil society support it. They don't have such an efficient mechanism for controlling content. But if you provide them with the rationale and philosophy for engaging in censorship in the name or "world harmony" they will certainly take it, and it will gradually be extended into new areas. 

> I do not understand why, whenever you are confronted with different
> opinions, you have to prove in front of everyone that yours is right and
> the others are wrong. It would be more productive to recognize that we
> live in a diverse world and we have to find common grounds to make
> everyone feel at home on the Internet.

Vittorio, this is not a productive way to pursue an important debate. You have been arguing, with skill and tenacity, that the freedom I favor is wrong. I am just answering you. Let's have the debate on the merits and not complain that we are running into opposition from each other. 

I do not engage in discussions like this "whenever I am confronted with different opinions." If I tried, I would be writing emails to this list 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I select my targets carefully, and freedom of expression is one of the most important. I am especially adamant about it because if civil society doesn't consistently support freedom of expression who the heck will? Business won't care unless they are selling something restricted, and governments, as you yourself pointed out, are looking for excuses to intervene wherever they can. 




No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.36/1041 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 10:20 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 11:16:21 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:16:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <00fd01c8043e$07246bd0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

> I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected 
> for a beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.  


It seems this is a classic dilemma of our new digital times: how to allocate
new space in an uncertain market that *could* become worth a fortune.

My intrinsic bias is for auctioning because it is free market and it removes
the beauty contest ability for a small number of people to make important
decisions.

But I can think of two recent examples in the UK where the auction method
has proved disastrous. 

The auctioning of 3G mobile licences provided the UK Treasury with over £20
billion - which was then promptly used to pay off national debt. But the
bidding only went so ridiculously high because all the companies were
worried that without a licence they would be out of business in five years.

The money paid was so large that the companies then couldn't afford to
produce the infrastructure or roll out the services. They have also upped
the prices of other non-3G phonecalls in order to recoup the money they
spent. So the consumer ends up paying more for less. 

A second example was when a lot of WiMax spectrum was auctioned off region
by region. Because of the rules put in place, a lot of companies that won
the auction for their region then had little choice but to sell their
licence to a company that had carefully gobbled up the most profitable
sectors. One region refuse to sell and tried to run its own service but
after a few months, the economies of scale weren't there and it sold it up
as well - leading to some, including me, to posit whether it hadn't actually
launched a shoddy service just to be able to demand more money from the
acquisitive company. 

The result was: a cut-price monopoly for a clever and aggressive company.
Who it seems may now end up not providing a consumer service at all because
there are other, more profitable, uses for the spectrum. 


Maybe the lesson to be learnt is that auctions have to be just as carefully
reviewed and structured as the mechanisms that are put in place to keep
beauty-contest organisations on the straight and narrow.
 


Kieren

  



-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:52 PM
To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Kieren,

I appreciate your engagement even if your use of the word 'inevitable'
was unfortunate; since very little is truly inevitable in the course of
human events.   

As you may recall folks, including myself and Milton, have developed
and advocated 'regular, transparent and objectuve' procedures for gTLD
allocation for some time, and offered concrete suggestions on how those
could be implemented. As have the OECD.

I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a
beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.  

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; best of luck to
ICANN implementing a 'regular, transparent and objective' method for
measuring beautiful gTLDs and not so beautiful gTLDs.

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 9:36:37 AM >>>
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define 
> censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you

> approve of: "the heckler's veto"


I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a reasonable review of what
I
wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.

I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine" and "heckler's veto"
to
undermine a point of view without engaging on the actual points but
unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and aggressive response
to
one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.

And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the concept of "well
meaning
censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so silly.



I think there are two broad points here:

* The Internet is global, and so any attempt to impose one prevailing
philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone would do well to
remember
that.

* The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a dissenting view
attacked
with little or no effort to review what they actually said is never
going to
provide any useful conclusion, and so all its resulting fire and heat
will
end up being ignored. 



Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in a later post I
see,
arguing that there is the possibility for a huge number of new gTLDs to
be
blocked.

I have to confess this is my concern as well - which is why it is vital
that
the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when it is queried is
where
the attention should be focused.

But all the while that the proponents of a far less
intellectual-property
view of the world spend shouting and refusing to engage, the more the
underlying system will take on the characteristics of those that seek
to
build, rather than impose, consensus.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In
one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people
from
doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define
censorship 
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of:

"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can
suppress 
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we
VERY 
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed
to 
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow
not 
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk
of 
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't
censorship 
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one
articlute a 
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic
rule 
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought

not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although

some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that
hold
any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted
or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of
imminent 
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new
gTLDs
result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ
so 
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the
governmental 
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which
is 
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly
bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the
reality 
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend
someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to
be
had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely
whisk 
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above
seriously, 
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things,

control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally
get 
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the
people 
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is
small, 
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to

deal with.

--
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Oct  1 11:26:21 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 11:26:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Paul:
Critical internet resources are the virtual resources required to maintain the Internet's connectivity: IP addresses, domain names, routing tables. The term derives from the Tunis Agenda. 

(Arguably, one could include bandwidth and the relevant interconnection arrangements, but little is to be gained by lumping bandwidth, which falls under a completely different business and governance regime, with addressing resources. imho this is a result of sloppy thinking, which the Tunis Agenda often contains.) 

I must challenge your approach to this question. You are Director General of an organization that allocates and assigns internet resources (IP addresses). The commercial Internet service providers who join your organization and pay rather substantial membership fees to do so, no doubt think these resources are critical. 

Are you really telling us that you do not know what we mean by "critical internet resources"? Or are you trying to suggest that the resources you allocate are not critical compared to others? 

If it is the latter, I can see no purpose to this question other than an attempt to divert attention away from your own policy domain and move it into others. And I think that's wrong. 

Certainly telecom access and electrical power, as some other messages have suggested, is critical to development and to the Internet, in any country. Neither are "critical Internet resource" of the type invoked by the Tunis Agenda. 

If you start talking about what environmental factors are important to the internet, then no doubt literacy would be critical. But Paul, civil society didn't put you on a critical internet resources panel to discuss power grids or literacy. You have no expertise on that, and the UN Internet Governance Forum is not the appropriate place to discuss policies related to that. 

So my advice to you is, stick to your knitting. Be prepared to discuss how the policies YOU make at APNIC affect users, and how those policies might be improved. Don't seek excuses from users for not addressing those issues. 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.36/1041 - Release Date: 10/1/2007 10:20 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Mon Oct  1 11:37:38 2007
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <124918.13499.qm@web52202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi Lee,

It wasn't so much that auctions were rejected in favor
of another approach, rather it was the case that
auctions weren't even considered or discussed by those
GNSO constituencies (notably the Business
Constituency) that at the earlier Washington session
had already made their minds up that they hated the
concept of auctions.

Until...

they realized that their constituency members
absolutely needed to have auctions in order to secure
for themselves at the second level certain
single-character reserved names -- Overstock wanted to
get O.COM and Yahoo wanted Y.COM, and the only way
they could be reasonably sure of obtaining these was
to agree to the concept of domain name allocation by
way of auction.

So now the opposition to auctions seems to have
quickly melted away -- I never cease to be amazed at
how greed manages to displace strongly held views...

Feel free to continue pushing for auctions; you may
now have a more receptive audience.

regards,
Danny


--- Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Kieren,
> 
> I appreciate your engagement even if your use of the
> word 'inevitable'
> was unfortunate; since very little is truly
> inevitable in the course of
> human events.   
> 
> As you may recall folks, including myself and
> Milton, have developed
> and advocated 'regular, transparent and objectuve'
> procedures for gTLD
> allocation for some time, and offered concrete
> suggestions on how those
> could be implemented. As have the OECD.
> 
> I understand the auction method we advocated has
> been rejected for a
> beauty contest approach of picking winners and
> losers.  
> 
> As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder;
> best of luck to
> ICANN implementing a 'regular, transparent and
> objective' method for
> measuring beautiful gTLDs and not so beautiful
> gTLDs.
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
> >>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 9:36:37 AM
> >>>
> > Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less
> how we define 
> > censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the
> false doctrine you
> 
> > approve of: "the heckler's veto"
> 
> 
> I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a
> reasonable review of what
> I
> wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.
> 
> I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine"
> and "heckler's veto"
> to
> undermine a point of view without engaging on the
> actual points but
> unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and
> aggressive response
> to
> one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.
> 
> And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the
> concept of "well
> meaning
> censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so
> silly.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are two broad points here:
> 
> * The Internet is global, and so any attempt to
> impose one prevailing
> philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone
> would do well to
> remember
> that.
> 
> * The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a
> dissenting view
> attacked
> with little or no effort to review what they
> actually said is never
> going to
> provide any useful conclusion, and so all its
> resulting fire and heat
> will
> end up being ignored. 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in
> a later post I
> see,
> arguing that there is the possibility for a huge
> number of new gTLDs to
> be
> blocked.
> 
> I have to confess this is my concern as well - which
> is why it is vital
> that
> the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when
> it is queried is
> where
> the attention should be focused.
> 
> But all the while that the proponents of a far less
> intellectual-property
> view of the world spend shouting and refusing to
> engage, the more the
> underlying system will take on the characteristics
> of those that seek
> to
> build, rather than impose, consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kieren
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
> [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
> Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new
> gTLDs
> 
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> 
> > You know, I have given these claims about human
> rights and new gTLDs
> some
> > consideration and I still just don't see the
> logic.
> >
> > Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from
> being approved? In
> one
> > sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as
> stopping people
> from
> doing
> > whatever they want despite the clear offence that
> will be taken by
> others.
> 
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how
> we define
> censorship 
> in the US.  We even have a name for the false
> doctrine you approve of:
> 
> "the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized
> authority can
> suppress 
> speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's
> reaction) -- and we
> VERY 
> strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense
> *cannot* be allowed
> to 
> muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.
> 
> The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption
> that it's somehow
> not 
> cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more
> persuasive to talk
> of 
> 'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that
> this isn't
> censorship 
> when it clearly is.
> 
> To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however,
> require that one
> articlute a 
> 'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight
> to the right to 
> speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to
> the prophylactic
> rule 
> that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for
> that matter) ought
> 
> not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not
> easy to do, although
> 
> some have tried.
> 
> > This type of "censorship" is more simply defined
> as the rules that
> hold
> any
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Mon Oct  1 11:49:17 2007
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:49:17 -0500
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <907593.42365.qm@web50204.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAABSL7wBofP9Ikm7f9c4t7LYBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm>

Um, these resonate with those of us on the periphery engaged in policy
development etc.

Well said!

Carlton Samuels
The University of the West Indies at Mona
Kingston, Jamaica

-----Original Message-----
From: Nnenna [mailto:nne75 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:43 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

>I'm interested to  know what people think  is most
>critcial to their use of the Internet.
 
When I am in Nigeria, it will be:

Electricity
Bandwidth
Physical security


When I am in Burkina Faso

Bandwidth
Availability of public access points
Hardware


When I am in Tunisia

Privacy
Availability of public access points
Freedom of expression


When I am in Geneva -outside the UN building

Price.
Bandwidth
Software

When I am at home in Abidjan

Hardware
Bandwidth
Price

Wherever I am

Bandwidth
Hardware
Software
Price.

__________________________________________________
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 avri at psg.com  Mon Oct  1 11:52:12 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:52:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <87588914-F9BA-4056-9E8D-CD03E17E556E@psg.com>


On 1 okt 2007, at 15.51, Lee McKnight wrote:

> I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a
> beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.


as far as i know, or hope.  no method has been thrown out.  all  
methods seem to have problems.

- beauty contest as you mention involve the eye of the beholders.
- auctions favor the rich.
- lotteries have legal constraints. (my favorite - when something is  
already unpredictable might as well let the fates decide. personally  
i think that if people knew it would be subjected to luck they would  
be quicker to find a compromise solution)

and there may be other methods, including other possible mechanisms  
for randomized selection.

but who knows what will be the right method, or whether one method  
will fit all.  i think the recommendation itself did not favor any  
particular method.

a.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/afbebd47/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/afbebd47/attachment.txt>

From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Mon Oct  1 11:57:37 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:57:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
Message-ID: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>

Kieren,

Totally agree, auctions can be botched, and your examples are right on target. I recall being surprised when  in a meeting with a major Euro telecom company back then, comparing my students 3G cost model to theirs....their model did not include infrastructure costs, ie the network, in deciding what price they should bid for the 3G spectrum. Oops. What's $12 billion here or there...

But easy to see people and firms do get caught up in the emotion of an auction and overpay.   

That explains also why especially Euro governments were so afraid of the 'a' word at the time we were suggesting this method be used for gTLDs. 

But the alternative is, I am afraid, endless arguments which cannot be objectively concluded. Kind of like this string on the list....

So the legal weather forecast for ICANN is showers of lawsuits...keep your umbrella up!  Remains unclear to me that this is preferrable to a carefully crafted, regular and objective auction process, with set-aside safeguards for developing countries and ngo's, as we advocated. In fact I don't believe it is. And could say I expect inevitably ICANN will agree with me, in say another 5 years.  But yeah I know nothing is truly inevitable...

Lee 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 11:16 AM >>>
> I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected 
> for a beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.  


It seems this is a classic dilemma of our new digital times: how to allocate
new space in an uncertain market that *could* become worth a fortune.

My intrinsic bias is for auctioning because it is free market and it removes
the beauty contest ability for a small number of people to make important
decisions.

But I can think of two recent examples in the UK where the auction method
has proved disastrous. 

The auctioning of 3G mobile licences provided the UK Treasury with over £20
billion - which was then promptly used to pay off national debt. But the
bidding only went so ridiculously high because all the companies were
worried that without a licence they would be out of business in five years.

The money paid was so large that the companies then couldn't afford to
produce the infrastructure or roll out the services. They have also upped
the prices of other non-3G phonecalls in order to recoup the money they
spent. So the consumer ends up paying more for less. 

A second example was when a lot of WiMax spectrum was auctioned off region
by region. Because of the rules put in place, a lot of companies that won
the auction for their region then had little choice but to sell their
licence to a company that had carefully gobbled up the most profitable
sectors. One region refuse to sell and tried to run its own service but
after a few months, the economies of scale weren't there and it sold it up
as well - leading to some, including me, to posit whether it hadn't actually
launched a shoddy service just to be able to demand more money from the
acquisitive company. 

The result was: a cut-price monopoly for a clever and aggressive company.
Who it seems may now end up not providing a consumer service at all because
there are other, more profitable, uses for the spectrum. 


Maybe the lesson to be learnt is that auctions have to be just as carefully
reviewed and structured as the mechanisms that are put in place to keep
beauty-contest organisations on the straight and narrow.
 


Kieren

  



-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:52 PM
To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Kieren,

I appreciate your engagement even if your use of the word 'inevitable'
was unfortunate; since very little is truly inevitable in the course of
human events.   

As you may recall folks, including myself and Milton, have developed
and advocated 'regular, transparent and objectuve' procedures for gTLD
allocation for some time, and offered concrete suggestions on how those
could be implemented. As have the OECD.

I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a
beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers.  

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; best of luck to
ICANN implementing a 'regular, transparent and objective' method for
measuring beautiful gTLDs and not so beautiful gTLDs.

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 9:36:37 AM >>>
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define 
> censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you

> approve of: "the heckler's veto"


I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a reasonable review of what
I
wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.

I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine" and "heckler's veto"
to
undermine a point of view without engaging on the actual points but
unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and aggressive response
to
one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.

And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the concept of "well
meaning
censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so silly.



I think there are two broad points here:

* The Internet is global, and so any attempt to impose one prevailing
philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone would do well to
remember
that.

* The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a dissenting view
attacked
with little or no effort to review what they actually said is never
going to
provide any useful conclusion, and so all its resulting fire and heat
will
end up being ignored. 



Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in a later post I
see,
arguing that there is the possibility for a huge number of new gTLDs to
be
blocked.

I have to confess this is my concern as well - which is why it is vital
that
the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when it is queried is
where
the attention should be focused.

But all the while that the proponents of a far less
intellectual-property
view of the world spend shouting and refusing to engage, the more the
underlying system will take on the characteristics of those that seek
to
build, rather than impose, consensus.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In
one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people
from
doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define
censorship 
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of:

"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can
suppress 
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we
VERY 
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed
to 
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow
not 
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk
of 
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't
censorship 
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one
articlute a 
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to 
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic
rule 
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought

not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although

some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that
hold
any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted
or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of
imminent 
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new
gTLDs
result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ
so 
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the
governmental 
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the 
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to 
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which
is 
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly
bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the
reality 
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend
someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to
be
had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely
whisk 
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above
seriously, 
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that 
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions 
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things,

control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally
get 
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the
people 
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is
small, 
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to

deal with.

--
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 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Oct  1 12:59:12 2007
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:59:12 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear List
 
the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global (boderless) nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation and to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and communication rights and freedoms). 
 
If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security", "public order", "public health " and "moral". 
 
In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see the right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and reputations or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values. 
 
In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda has to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other nations have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is always a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the conflicting values. 
 
The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the late 1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon papers where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the right to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the first amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued that in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US citizens limitations are justified.   
 
The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party. The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide what is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation of human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no consensus among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only thing you can reach is to agree to disagree. 
 
I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral independent court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as part of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such a third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the scene and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of innovative ideas (and trust). 
 
With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD. The two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts with one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it really doesn´t matter. 
 
There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal? Why this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler". Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society this means nothing. 
 
If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt for names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which obliges all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What will happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for additional domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their content (if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know how to bypass this official blockage. 
 
What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
 
Wolfgang    
 
>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society 
 
 

________________________________

Von: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mo 01.10.2007 17:57
An: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs



Kieren,

Totally agree, auctions can be botched, and your examples are right on target. I recall being surprised when  in a meeting with a major Euro telecom company back then, comparing my students 3G cost model to theirs....their model did not include infrastructure costs, ie the network, in deciding what price they should bid for the 3G spectrum. Oops. What's $12 billion here or there...

But easy to see people and firms do get caught up in the emotion of an auction and overpay.  

That explains also why especially Euro governments were so afraid of the 'a' word at the time we were suggesting this method be used for gTLDs.

But the alternative is, I am afraid, endless arguments which cannot be objectively concluded. Kind of like this string on the list....

So the legal weather forecast for ICANN is showers of lawsuits...keep your umbrella up!  Remains unclear to me that this is preferrable to a carefully crafted, regular and objective auction process, with set-aside safeguards for developing countries and ngo's, as we advocated. In fact I don't believe it is. And could say I expect inevitably ICANN will agree with me, in say another 5 years.  But yeah I know nothing is truly inevitable...

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 11:16 AM >>>
> I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected
> for a beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers. 


It seems this is a classic dilemma of our new digital times: how to allocate
new space in an uncertain market that *could* become worth a fortune.

My intrinsic bias is for auctioning because it is free market and it removes
the beauty contest ability for a small number of people to make important
decisions.

But I can think of two recent examples in the UK where the auction method
has proved disastrous.

The auctioning of 3G mobile licences provided the UK Treasury with over £20
billion - which was then promptly used to pay off national debt. But the
bidding only went so ridiculously high because all the companies were
worried that without a licence they would be out of business in five years.

The money paid was so large that the companies then couldn't afford to
produce the infrastructure or roll out the services. They have also upped
the prices of other non-3G phonecalls in order to recoup the money they
spent. So the consumer ends up paying more for less.

A second example was when a lot of WiMax spectrum was auctioned off region
by region. Because of the rules put in place, a lot of companies that won
the auction for their region then had little choice but to sell their
licence to a company that had carefully gobbled up the most profitable
sectors. One region refuse to sell and tried to run its own service but
after a few months, the economies of scale weren't there and it sold it up
as well - leading to some, including me, to posit whether it hadn't actually
launched a shoddy service just to be able to demand more money from the
acquisitive company.

The result was: a cut-price monopoly for a clever and aggressive company.
Who it seems may now end up not providing a consumer service at all because
there are other, more profitable, uses for the spectrum.


Maybe the lesson to be learnt is that auctions have to be just as carefully
reviewed and structured as the mechanisms that are put in place to keep
beauty-contest organisations on the straight and narrow.



Kieren

 



-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:52 PM
To: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Kieren,

I appreciate your engagement even if your use of the word 'inevitable'
was unfortunate; since very little is truly inevitable in the course of
human events.  

As you may recall folks, including myself and Milton, have developed
and advocated 'regular, transparent and objectuve' procedures for gTLD
allocation for some time, and offered concrete suggestions on how those
could be implemented. As have the OECD.

I understand the auction method we advocated has been rejected for a
beauty contest approach of picking winners and losers. 

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; best of luck to
ICANN implementing a 'regular, transparent and objective' method for
measuring beautiful gTLDs and not so beautiful gTLDs.

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 10/1/2007 9:36:37 AM >>>
> Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define
> censorship in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you

> approve of: "the heckler's veto"


I wasn't mocking anyone. And I don't think a reasonable review of what
I
wrote would reveal anything approaching mockery.

I admire your semantic efforts of "false doctrine" and "heckler's veto"
to
undermine a point of view without engaging on the actual points but
unfortunately all that leaves is one blinkered and aggressive response
to
one attempt at broader discussion and understanding.

And your attempt to argue that I am presenting the concept of "well
meaning
censorship" would be insulting if it wasn't so silly.



I think there are two broad points here:

* The Internet is global, and so any attempt to impose one prevailing
philosophy over it are doomed to failure. Everyone would do well to
remember
that.

* The approach to discourse that sees anyone with a dissenting view
attacked
with little or no effort to review what they actually said is never
going to
provide any useful conclusion, and so all its resulting fire and heat
will
end up being ignored.



Danny Younger actually makes an effort to engage in a later post I
see,
arguing that there is the possibility for a huge number of new gTLDs to
be
blocked.

I have to confess this is my concern as well - which is why it is vital
that
the actual mechanisms for deciding a new gTLD when it is queried is
where
the attention should be focused.

But all the while that the proponents of a far less
intellectual-property
view of the world spend shouting and refusing to engage, the more the
underlying system will take on the characteristics of those that seek
to
build, rather than impose, consensus.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
[mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:48 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kieren McCarthy
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs
some
> consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
> Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In
one
> sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people
from
doing
> whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by
others.

Yet, despite your mockery, that is more or less how we define
censorship
in the US.  We even have a name for the false doctrine you approve of:

"the heckler's veto" (the doctrine that centralized authority can
suppress
speech because of its concern for a 3rd party's reaction) -- and we
VERY
strongly disapprove of it.  That B claims offense *cannot* be allowed
to
muzzle A, or else A's *right* to speak is illusory.

The rest of your note proceeds under the assumption that it's somehow
not
cencorship if it's well meaning.  It would be more persuasive to talk
of
'balancing' rights than to try to argue somehow that this isn't
censorship
when it clearly is.

To shift to a 'balancing' view does, however, require that one
articlute a
'right not to be offended' equal in value and weight to the right to
speak, and also equal in likely long run effect to the prophylactic
rule
that governments (or quasi-governmental entities for that matter) ought

not to be trusted to regulate speech.  This is not easy to do, although

some have tried.

> This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that
hold
any
> society together.
>
> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to
others'
> sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted
or

It is so long as it does not creat physical harm, or the risk of
imminent
physical harm (shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).

You have defined the problem away.  But it's still there.

> intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different
matter.
>
>
>
> The important question to ask is: does not allowing certain new
gTLDs
result
> in the removal or stymieing of discussion of a certain topic?

No, the important question to ask is, "Who decides" -- opinions differ
so
the question is at which level will the decision be made, the
governmental
(or quasi-governmental) or the individual level.  In the US we in the
large majority of cases, do not trust institutions with the power to
decide these questions.

>
> And the answer to this is quite clearly no.

And the answer to this question is in fact that opinions differ, which
is
why history teaches us that the power question is central.

>
> This human rights argument appears to completely ignore the actual
reality
> of the Internet. There is actually comparatively little connection
between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly
bizarre.
>
>

The argument for the heckler's veto seems to ignore completely the
reality
of the diversity of viewpoints, and the many things that offend
someone.

I could go on, but I think you get the point....

[...]

> I can't for the life of me understand why so much effort is being put
into
> shouting at policies drawn up and agreed to by large sections of the
ICANN
> community over several years when the really important discussion to
be
had
> is how exactly the inevitable policies are implemented.
>
>

It is very hard to believe that well-educated people can so blithely
whisk
away the lessons of history.  Assuming that you mean the above
seriously,
all I can say is that there's a powerful body of modern history that
teaches that Very Bad Things tend to follow from giving institutions
chokeholds over speech.  I do agree that in the grand scheme of things,

control over TLD content is (today) pretty small beer.  I personally
get
more excited about Guantanamo.  But I do understand and respect the
people
who argue that one must fight the question of principle when it is
small,
and can be won, rather than waiting until it is big, and much harder to

deal with.

--
http://www.icannwatch.org <http://www.icannwatch.org/>    Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net <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 <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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Mon Oct  1 13:05:31 2007
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 10:05:31 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <87588914-F9BA-4056-9E8D-CD03E17E556E@psg.com>
References: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu> <87588914-F9BA-4056-9E8D-CD03E17E556E@psg.com>
Message-ID: <46434748-1DE3-4B90-8BF3-1E91A05F861A@internet.law.pro>

On Oct 1, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> - lotteries have legal constraints. (my favorite - when something  
> is already unpredictable might as well let the fates decide.  
> personally i think that if people knew it would be subjected to  
> luck they would be quicker to find a compromise solution)

Avri, during my time on the Council, I heard this voiced at the  
Amsterdam meeting, and I thought we had put it to rest. There is no  
legal constrain whatsoever on random selection. Coin flips and names  
in a hat are perfectly legal ways to decide something, if other  
mechanisms fail. A lottery, on the other hand, is a completely  
different beast, and is governed by law, at least in the United  
States. In a lottery, you pay money for a chance, and if you are not  
selected in the lottery, you lose the money you paid for the chance.  
Because of the "lose-your-money" factor, lotteries are deemed second  
cousins to gambling.

I agree with you on the chance factor having a coercive effect on  
compromise. You can still do that.

      -- Bret

--
Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext")
smime.p7s is a digital signature
http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-------------------------------------




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2974 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/95e8a1a0/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/95e8a1a0/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Mon Oct  1 14:15:31 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 20:15:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <46434748-1DE3-4B90-8BF3-1E91A05F861A@internet.law.pro>
References: <s700c34a.093@gwia203.syr.edu> <87588914-F9BA-4056-9E8D-CD03E17E556E@psg.com> <46434748-1DE3-4B90-8BF3-1E91A05F861A@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <3A7B81CB-20BF-4E18-AD04-7784D2F5BD77@psg.com>


On 1 okt 2007, at 19.05, Bret Fausett wrote:

> I agree with you on the chance factor having a coercive effect on  
> compromise. You can still do that.

thank you.  i will follow up on that.

i had not caught that distinction and am so glad you pointed it out  
again.

a.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/2d768921/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071001/2d768921/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 15:23:09 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 22:23:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710011223v3bd39d68t36c084a64e175792@mail.gmail.com>

Wolfie,

Very clever and subtle invocation of Godwin's Law ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Oct  1 15:54:43 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:54:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


As usual, very historically informed and interesting comments from Wolfgang. the emphasis W places on the independent judiciary is critical. At a recent speech here in Syracuse by US Supreme Court Justice Roberts, he read to us a constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of expression and association. It was actually stronger in some ways than the US First Amendment. But it was from the 1970s-era Soviet Union. The main difference between USSR and USA was the independent judiciary. 

Wolfgang, I have a question about this:

-----Original Message-----
>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom 
>of the media, in particular the radio to spread 
>racist propoganda which paved the way for killing 
>six millions jews - it was very understandable that 
>the fathers of the post WWII German Constitution 
>agreed that nazi and racist propaganda has to be illegal 

Didn't the Nazis suppress a "free" media, they only allowed their own view to be broadcast?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karl at cavebear.com  Mon Oct  1 16:04:21 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:04:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <470152C5.1080902@cavebear.com>

Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to others'
> sensibilities?

To the first approximation, the answer is yes.

We have learned that there are certain limitations, such as defamation. 
  But those are exceptions to the general rule.

US first amendment law is very complex, but the default is always to 
allow expression and only limit it when there is a reason that is 
compelling and the limitation is only the minimal amount necessary to 
remediate.

The road that some here are advocating is a road that has many 
historical precursors.  From that experience we have learned again that 
the road of suppression does not bind societies; rather it makes them 
pressure cookers that eventually explode or fragment.

We have already seen the effects from .xxx, a triplet derived from the 
image of three crosses being dragged up Calvary mount.

Many of us find torture to be at least as offensive as images of naked 
people.  And there is one particularly gruesome image of a man who has 
been nailed to two pieces of wood, stabbed with a spear, crowned with a 
wreath of thorns, and left to die.

Should we ban this symbol from the internet?

The path that some are suggesting is neo Puritanism.  It is the kind of 
iconoclastic mind shoots howitzers at ancient statutes carved into 
mountain cliffs in Afghanistan.

The last centuries have taught us again and again that the answer is not 
to restrict expression but to require those who do not wish to see or 
hear to cover their eyes or ears.

This is not something that is hard to do - Personal, and even community, 
filters are easy to obtain and deploy.


> There is actually comparatively little connection between
> domain names and content and to pretend otherwise is frankly bizarre.

If that were true then why did ICANN deny .xxx?

And .biz has become known as the land of scammers.

And there are even companies that advertise their superior worth because 
they live in the Montecito of TLDs, .org.

		--karl--
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karl at cavebear.com  Mon Oct  1 17:03:00 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:03:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <20071001142747.6DA272202D2@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <20071001142747.6DA272202D2@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <47016084.7050405@cavebear.com>


I agree with you that DNS roots are not a critical resource.

My list of critical internet resources is short:

  - IP addresses and routing

A sub-issue of routing is the question of procedural/administrative 
mechanisms to give end-users (or their agents, ISPs) the ability to try 
to obtain end-to-end assurances (not guarantees) of flow quality 
sufficient to support a proposed application (such as VoIP.)

Another sub issue is need to prune and remove filters that have become 
stale - much of the net is becoming contaminated soil because of a 
legacy of prior uses and filters that are deployed by net providers and 
users and never removed.

In the future I'd add troubleshooting and control mechanisms, but that's 
a future thing.

And I sense that we are entering an era in which we will have debates 
about centralized versus decentralized reputation services, but that 
strikes me as a reprise of the singular versus multiple DNS root debate 
but without the layer of dogmatic preconceptions.

Another issue that may come forth in the future is that of attachments - 
might we someday require that devices bear some sort of seal of goodness 
before they may attach to the net?  I say this because I am in the 
business of testing stuff and I never cease to be amazed at the low 
quality of some of the junk that we attach to the net without the 
slightest thought of the damage that it might directly cause or how it 
might become a vector allowing indirect harm.

The reason that my list is so short is that I define the internet as an 
open system that transports IP packets from source IP addresses to 
destination IP addresses.

		--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  Mon Oct  1 17:14:31 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:14:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Public Voice call on OECD participation
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DF3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

<Here are more detailed notes, thanks to Allison Knight of EPIC>

The Public Voice - Meeting 6
September 20, 2007

1. Civil Society Participation in the Upcoming OECD Forum and
Ministerial

a) OECD Public Consultation
NEW DEADLINE: September 30, 2007
http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_
1_1,00.html

b) Ottawa Technology Foresight Forum
http://www.oecd.org/futureinternet/participativeweb

Civil Society Speakers - a number of speakers who will be attending the
Technology Foresight Forum in Ottawa on October 3 gave brief overviews
of their presentations, so that other civil society groups can give
feedback or contribute questions to the Forum:

Marc Rotenberg, EPIC: will address the challenge of translating civil
society policy concerns into OECD policy. He explained that the OECD is
generally a good forum, with good principles, and he wants to highlights
the connections between both policy areas.

Manon Ress, CPTech: will address the possibility of a new Web for
consumers, with reference to User-Created Content, and the need for open
standards for databases and data (e.g. free WiFi)

Andres Monroy-Hernandez, Lego and Lifelong Kindergarten Initiative, MIT:
will address User-Created Content and Web 2.0 and their influence on
education. He will also discuss programming language for children.

Roland Schneider, TUAC: a colleague will emphasize the barriers that
remain to public access, highlighting affordability, and Net neutrality

John Lawford, PIAC: will address privacy issues as they relate to
security, or "Privacy 2.0". He will ask: what will privacy look like in
the future? What will consumers need to protect their privacy against
data mining and government surveillance (i.e. control)? What tools can
upgrade the privacy model? What role will anonymity play?

There will be a civil society meeting on October 3, during one of the
breaks at the Technology Foresight Forum in Ottawa. Details to follow at
the Forum.

c) June 2008 Ministerial
http://www.oecd.org/document/19/0,2340,fr_2649_34255_38051667_1_1_1_1,00
.html

Civil Society Contributions: joint issue paper, and workshop
Participants on the call suggested several key policy issues that
could/should be included in a civil society joint paper. 

CS background paper: creation of different "subgroups" which will draft
different portions/subjects.

Possible issues:
- Broadband deployment
- Network neutrality and competition
- Intellectual property
- Privacy and security
- Access to public information (and open standards) freedom of
expression (censorship)
- Privacy and freedom of speech
- Consumer protection
- Social issues - ICT skills, employment, outsourcing

It was suggested that these issues could be grouped under broad themes,
such as:
- Privacy and security
- Consumer protection in ecommerce
- Unfair terms in electronic contracts
- Network Architecture: (regrouping open standards, neutrality...)
- Participation: free speech, IPR protection,

Further discussion on the structure of the paper and its themes/issues
will continue on the Public Voice mailing list, and in future conference
calls.

d) Sourcebook
EPIC will produce a short Sourcebook of relevant OECD and OECD/civil
society-related documents in order to provide a framework and a history
for civil society.
The proposed Table of Contents is as follows:

I. Forward/Introduction
II. OECD - Institution
- History
- Membership
III. OECD - Research Resources
- Summary of Communications Outlook
- Summary of Technology Outlook
IV. OECD - Policy Framework
- Privacy Guidelines
- Cryptography Guidelines
- Security Guidelines
V. NGO Participation
- 1998 Declaration
- Report on Transparency

Several participants suggested additional documents - Allison will
follow up with those individuals. Claudia will circulate the outline for
the sourcebook to the ICCP people, to see if there are other
documents/papers/recommendations that can be added. If anyone else has
suggestions of documents that have not been included, please contact
Allison.

2. Internet Governance Forum
November 12-15, 2007
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
http://www.intgovforum.org
All Dynamic Coalitions will hold a meeting at the Forum. There will also
be workshops on Critical Infrastructure, Access, Diversity, Openness,
Security, and Development, and there will be a Public Discussion space.
The format will follow the Athens meetings last year. A fifth policy
area was added to the IFG focus areas: Critical Internet Infrastructure.
The problem of funding was raised - civil society participation is
encouraged, but there is no funding available to sponsor individuals.

3. Latin America NGO Activity
As the call had already reached one hour in length, it was agreed that
this agenda item would be deferred until the beginning of the October
Public Voice call.

Next conference call - Thursday, October 18, 12-1 pm Eastern Time

Milton Mueller, Professor
Syracuse University 
School of Information Studies
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
------------------------------
The Convergence Center:
http://www.digitalconvergence.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 17:34:20 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 00:34:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

I was hoping NOT to have to jump in on this thread, but this red flag
is just too tempting ;-)

On 10/1/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Paul:
> Critical internet resources are the virtual resources required to maintain the Internet's connectivity: IP addresses, domain names, routing tables. The term derives from the Tunis Agenda.

Reading the TA, CIR aren't defined in it (below are all instances
where the term "critical internet resources" appear in the TA), and
there is certainly no mention of routing tables anywhere in the TA.
But I am curious about their inclusion in your list, if you have a
routing table, that implies a router, so aren't routers also a CIR
under your definition?

"58. We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet
naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public
policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the
security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and
issues pertaining to the use of the Internet."

So this seems to suggest that naming and addressing AREN'T CIR
according to the TA!! Perhaps this is an example of "sloppy thinking"?

"70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation
should include the development of globally-applicable principles on
public policy issues associated with the coordination and management
of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the
organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the
Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates
this development of public policy principles."

Again, CIRs undefined!

and of course:

72. j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources.

>
> (Arguably, one could include bandwidth and the relevant interconnection arrangements, but little is to be gained by lumping bandwidth, which falls under a completely different business and governance regime, with addressing resources. imho this is a result of sloppy thinking, which the Tunis Agenda often contains.)
>

One could include many things under the umbrella of CIR, as it is
undefined by the TA.

I know that if I am doing "bushnetworking" in Africa, I'll need:

power (truck batteries, solar panels, inverters/solar chargers,
earthing kit, etc)
high sites (for wireless repeaters) or a VSAT dish
network interfaces
Outdoor cat 5 cables, jacks
wifi routers or high-powered cards
a truck (with diesel) to get the kit to remote sites
physical security

Of course the networking equipment needs port assignments (IANA)
protocols (IANA again), IP addresses (IANA again!, but not necessarily
a RIR), a default route/gateway, an ASN (for the whole network)
(IANA/RIR), however, once I have those things, (plus lots of other
stuff standardized by the IETF/W3C) I still couldn't get a connection
to a remote site without the above list of things that need to get on
the truck!

> I must challenge your approach to this question. You are Director General of an organization that allocates and assigns internet resources (IP addresses). The commercial Internet service providers who join your organization and pay rather substantial membership fees to do so, no doubt think these resources are critical.
>

I must challenge your challenge.

Countries and academic institutions and other folk join APNIC as
LIR/NIRs as well as "commercial ISPs".

RIR fees are calculated on a "cost recovery" basis, so they aren't
"substantial" for most members. Annual fees are approximately the same
as the costs of many, (if not most) list members expenses to the IGF.

> Are you really telling us that you do not know what we mean by "critical internet resources"? Or are you trying to suggest that the resources you allocate are not critical compared to others?
>

I suspect it's the former, not the latter.  Since TA didn't define
them, well they are subjective, innit?

> If it is the latter, I can see no purpose to this question other than an attempt to divert attention away from your own policy domain and move it into others. And I think that's wrong.
>
> Certainly telecom access and electrical power, as some other messages have suggested, is critical to development and to the Internet, in any country. Neither are "critical Internet resource" of the type invoked by the Tunis Agenda.

Again, TA does NOT define what is a "CIR"  If you are going to invoke
a document, you should be sure that it says what you think it says (or
perhaps want it to say).

>
> If you start talking about what environmental factors are important to the internet, then no doubt literacy would be critical. But Paul, civil society didn't put you on a critical internet resources panel to discuss power grids or literacy. You have no expertise on that, and the UN Internet Governance Forum is not the appropriate place to discuss policies related to that.
>
> So my advice to you is, stick to your knitting. Be prepared to discuss how the policies YOU make at APNIC

So, this is what made me jump in here.  RIRs DON'T MAKE ANY POLICIES!!
 It's not the membership of the RIR itself that make the policies,
it's the members of the RIR communities that make the policies, this
can include end-users, CS and gov'ts as well as the boffins who work
for "commercial ISPs" (what you really should use in this context is
"LIRs/NIRs", not ISPs).

Take me for example, I work with several LIRs, but don't represent any
of them on RIR mailing lists, I represent myself.  I think that this
is the case for many if not most participants on those lists.  These
folk have the health and growth of the network foremost in mind when
discussing policy, not necessarily the commercial interests of their
employers.

> affect users, and how those policies might be improved. Don't seek excuses from users for not addressing those issues.

I hate to abuse a late equine, but if you want to improve those
policies, you should join those processes.  Can you help Paul with his
knitting?  IIRC, Ray has already invited you to join his circle.


-- 
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  Mon Oct  1 19:42:09 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 16:42:09 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info>
 <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> <p0623090dc3262dfacaeb@[10.0.1.3]>
 <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <p06230910c3272eb670ac@[10.0.1.3]>

At 11:45 AM +0100 10/1/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

>> The whole issue with gTLDs is that these identifiers also
>> contain expressive characteristics.  And these expressive
>> characteristics are precisely what might come into play
>> in rejections based on "morality" or trademarks, etc.
>
>> In this case, the distinction between identification and
>> expression is hopelessly blurred, and the expressive-related
>> policies could easily be extended to other forms of expression.
>
>
>
>You know, I have given these claims about human rights and new gTLDs some
>consideration and I still just don't see the logic.
>
>Is it censorship to stop certain new gTLDs from being approved? In one
>sense, yes. But only if you define censorship as stopping people from doing
>whatever they want despite the clear offence that will be taken by others.
>
>This type of "censorship" is more simply defined as the rules that hold any
>society together.
>
>Is it our "human right" to say whatever we want without regard to others'
>sensibilities? No, it's not. We do have a right to not be prosecuted or
>intimidated for expressing an opinion, but that is a quite different matter.



The point that you're missing here, Kieren, is the underlying point about
political authority and governance structure.

It is the job of public governance to work through the very conflicts of
rights that you address here (and seem to come to some sort of personal
conclusion, as if you were the judge).  Our human rights often conflict,
and it is not simple to resolve them -- there is often less "common sense"
than appears to the unaided eye.  Drawing the lines is not easy, and the
processes we use to draw such lines are *very* important because they are
often applied more broadly than the specific cases in which they initially
arise.

Who decides who has what rights in what contexts, and how (procedurally) do
they make those decisions?  That is the core issue here.

We should be concerned about it here specifically because setting any
precedent for applying *expression-driven criteria* in gTLDs has the
potential to be applied to *other expressive contexts*.  Not because
censoring gTLDs itself inhibits free expression (it does, but your argument
that it doesn't matter much in and of itself is not entirely unreasonable
-- but then why should it be such a big deal to censor them in the first
place?  somebody out there cares a great deal about censoring them, so that
fact in itself makes them a big deal), but because establishing *authority
and processes* at ICANN to do this for gTLDs sets the stage to apply it to
2LDs and to content and applications themselves.  You may not see the
slippery slope here, but to me it's screaming in my face.  People who study
organizational and institutional dynamics are very familiar with these
tendencies, and they are rampant in the legal/political world.

Society has struggled forever to make these decisions, and to create
accountable processes and institutions for making these decisions, and we
have certainly not perfected the process yet, anywhere.  Nothing in the
realm of balancing human rights is as "clear" as one might presume using
"common sense".  The principle of *prior restraint* in the area of threats
to freedom of expression is *very* serious indeed, and that's precisely
what ICANN is proposing in the new gTLD policy.

If one suggests that ICANN should be the authority and design the processes
to make these decisions for the whole world, then I get scared.  Compared
to the difficult and contentious political venues and processes that
everyone loves to trash, ICANN's governance structures represent a step
backward in accountability to the citizenry of the world.

People who support the censorship of content generally will try to make the
point that "gTLDs are nothing to worry about" but this is not just about
gTLDs.  Allowing expression-related criteria in ICANN procedures for gTLDs
would establish a precedent that can be used to support similar efforts
applying to other realms beyond gTLDs per se.

The point is that even if ICANN allows a gTLD application to move forward
and it ends up offending someone, then the proper venue to address that is
a formal court of law with an accountable jurisdiction, because courts have
institutional structures that are ideally designed to provide for some
formal accountability to the public interest.  Again, far from perfect, but
ICANN is a step back from even that standard.

These balances of competing human rights will need to be decided somewhere
for sure, and no one is saying that they should be ignored.  Simply that
ICANN is the wrong place to make the decisions.  Who is *ICANN* to tell me
what my human rights are or are not?  Tell it to the judge.

ICANN is not an appropriate judge, jury, or law enforcement institution to
deal with the difficult problems of balancing human rights.

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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Oct  1 20:02:47 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 08:02:47 +0800
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47018AA7.3080200@Malcolm.id.au>

McTim wrote:
> Reading the TA, CIR aren't defined in it (below are all instances
> where the term "critical internet resources" appear in the TA), and
> there is certainly no mention of routing tables anywhere in the TA.
> But I am curious about their inclusion in your list, if you have a
> routing table, that implies a router, so aren't routers also a CIR
> under your definition?

This is true, but the TA is not an island.  The WGIG Background Report 
is much more clear:

"54.  Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical 
Internet resources are  of direct relevance to Internet governance and 
fall within the ambit of existing organizations  with responsibility for 
these matters. The issues divide fairly naturally into two subgroups:

* Issues relating to physical infrastructure including related technical 
standards, and  telecommunications infrastructure including innovative 
and converged technologies; and

* Issues relating to the management of critical Internet resources, 
including  administration of the domain name system and IP addresses, 
administration of the  root server system, as well as 
multilingualization of the domain name system."

Sure this means that the Tunis Agenda is a bit confused on this point, 
but what else is new?  The definitions of the stakeholder groups are 
another classic example of that.

-- 
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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com  Mon Oct  1 14:08:41 2007
From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:08:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] news: Bhutan interim solution
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20071001110646.033ce5f8@peoplewho.org>

Bhutan Telecom ditches donkeys

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4221636a28.html

(At WSIS Bhutan explained how, instead of runners all the way, one 
could email post office to post office and a runner would take the 
letter the last mile.)

Sylvia

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Mon Oct  1 21:37:33 2007
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 18:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
Message-ID: <429511.64165.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

This debate on human rights and gTLDs is interesting, but surely the role of ICANN in this debate, that is possible censorship, is minor when one looks at other players. For example, Verizon and AT&T have both been panned in the press in the last week for censorship. Admittedly Verizon reversed its decision, but will AT&T? And did Verizon reverse its decision due to freedom of speech issues, or public pressure?

Timothy Karr writing in the Huffington Post writes of both issues and digs out of the AT&T terms of service the following:
AT&T may "immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your
service ... without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes ...
tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents,
affiliates and subsidiaries."

This is a real and happening area of censorship, yet there is no discussion here as to the merits of such terms of service, nor of Verizon censoring messages that can go across its network.

Free speech advocates can huff and puff about the supposed First Amendment in the US, but when incidents such as these occur, it makes non-US citizens see it's only a freedom of speech, if others will let you...

For the article in The Huffington Post, see:
What's the Biggest Threat to Free Speech in America
If you thought phone companies were simply supposed to get you connected, think again. Over the last week we learned that the nation's two largest telecommunications firms want to get into the business of censorship as well - blocking the free flow of information sent over phones and the Internet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/whats-the-biggest-threat_b_66708.html

Regards
David
 
--------- 
David Goldstein
 address: 4/3 Abbott Street
           COOGEE NSW 2034
           AUSTRALIA
 email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au
 phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)
 
"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery



      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dan at musicunbound.com  Tue Oct  2 02:37:47 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 23:37:47 -0700
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <429511.64165.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <429511.64165.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <p06230912c32792051751@[10.0.1.3]>

No question that net neutrality issues in the US are critical, and that the
lack of open access and/or interconnection regulation has structurally
reduced competition in the US broadband ISP market, thus precluding the
normal market incentives for net neutrality to emerge as a competitive
feature to serve customers.

Absolutely, there is no reason to trust Verizon or AT&T not to block data
on a discriminatory basis in the future.

However, this does not make the ICANN issue less important in the long run.
ICANN is threatening to claim authority over expressive characteristics of
DNS and to develop processes for adjudicating claims with regard to those
expressions.  It starts with gTLDs, but once the foot is in the door there
the precedents can easily apply more broadly.  Censorship always starts
with the least controversial specific cases, but then the task of figuring
out where to draw the line becomes infinitely complicated, and the line has
a potential to move great distances in short periods of time.

Every society has to debate how and where to draw the line, and if it is to
be a just society it must be accountable to the full range of its citizenry
when it addresses these tradeoffs (between freedom of expression as the
default and actionable offense as the limited and circumscribed
carve-out/opt-out from free expression).

The issue of net neutrality in the US is a matter ultimately of federal
legislation and regulation.  At least it is under the authority of a
political jurisdiction that has not totally lost its accountability to the
general public, though it has certainly been frighteningly eroded in the
last several years.

That sort of public jurisdiction is exactly where these sorts of issues
should be contended with.  ICANN does not constitute such a properly
accountable political jurisdiction.  But it is threatening to usurp such
political jurisdictions.

No good can come of this.  Would you trust ICANN not to block your data, if
it appealed to authoritarian governments and large IP-owning corporations
to decide what data to block or not?  I wouldn't.

Once again, this is not just about gTLDs.  It is about political authority
and legislative/administrative/judicial process -- i.e., accountability to
the general public.  ICANN is not a public government, and it cannot
effectively replace public governance.  For it to attempt to do so would be
frightening and alarming.

The new gTLD policy as currently proposed contains elements that amount to
nothing short of a Trojan Horse for the censorship lobby and others who
wish to centralize control over information.  (This is not to say that all
who support the proposed gTLD policy wish to impose censorship and
centralized control of information, but that all who wish to do these
things support the gTLD policy because it helps bring them closer to that
result.)

Dan



At 6:37 PM -0700 10/1/07, David Goldstein wrote:
>This debate on human rights and gTLDs is interesting, but surely the role
>of ICANN in this debate, that is possible censorship, is minor when one
>looks at other players. For example, Verizon and AT&T have both been
>panned in the press in the last week for censorship. Admittedly Verizon
>reversed its decision, but will AT&T? And did Verizon reverse its decision
>due to freedom of speech issues, or public pressure?
>
>Timothy Karr writing in the Huffington Post writes of both issues and digs
>out of the AT&T terms of service the following:
>AT&T may "immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your
>service ... without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes ...
>tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents,
>affiliates and subsidiaries."
>
>This is a real and happening area of censorship, yet there is no
>discussion here as to the merits of such terms of service, nor of Verizon
>censoring messages that can go across its network.
>
>Free speech advocates can huff and puff about the supposed First Amendment
>in the US, but when incidents such as these occur, it makes non-US
>citizens see it's only a freedom of speech, if others will let you...
>
>For the article in The Huffington Post, see:
>What's the Biggest Threat to Free Speech in America
>If you thought phone companies were simply supposed to get you connected,
>think again. Over the last week we learned that the nation's two largest
>telecommunications firms want to get into the business of censorship as
>well - blocking the free flow of information sent over phones and the
>Internet.
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/whats-the-biggest-threat_b_66708.html
>
>Regards
>David
>
>---------
>David Goldstein
> address: 4/3 Abbott Street
>           COOGEE NSW 2034
>           AUSTRALIA
> email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au
> phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home)
>
>"Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time
>you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim
>Flannery
>
>
>
>      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Tue Oct  2 05:01:12 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 05:01:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <47018AA7.3080200@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47018AA7.3080200@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <2aa69fe40710020201ka5a68fcta1162e6c0af9c13d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, Jeremy and all.

You are quoting the WGIG Background Report, but see the beginning of that
same document:


1.         This Background Report accompanies and is complementary to the
Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (The WGIG Report). It
includes much of the work produced in the course of the Working Group
process and reflects the wide variety of opinions held within the group as
well as many comments made by stakeholders during the consultation process.
The Background Report does not have the same status as the WGIG Report,
which is a short consensus document for policy makers. However, the
Background Report can be used as a reference in that it provides a summary
of the process and various issue papers, with some additional thoughts and
considerations about potential solutions for issues not covered in detail in
the WGIG Report. If not every member of the group agrees with every word,
they all agree with this approach and the Background Report makes clear
whether an argument or opinion is shared by the entire group or only by some
of its members.


It is not by accident that the WGIG report is the official document, and
this is the Background Report. In the UN world every detail is important,
and you can pick more of the words in the above mentioned paragraph to see
it for yourself.

Perhaps some think that it is much more fun to discuss issues where there's
controversy (you don't believe me? then think that the tabloids have bigger
circulation than the serious newspapers), but at ISOC-Bulgaria (and in
Bulgaria in general) we understand quite well that if we want to achieve
something, we need to focus on the things that unite us, not on the ones
which divide us.

In the current discussion for example we see that, yet again, people with
North/West thinking (and that does not eliminate Australia:-) have different
understanding of what's critical for the Internet. It is understandable -
when you have high-speed Internet at home, and thousands of wi-fi spots all
over the country, and sometimes whole cities, which are with wi-fi, provided
by the municipality, of course that for you the perspective is different.

When you have hot water 24x7, you don't even think about the people who have
never had hot water, or for the ones, who have limited access to water. Do
you want to bet that for some of the people on the list from the West/North
part of the world water is not among the critical resources of their
everyday life; and if you ask them what's critical for them, you may find
out answers like "how much gas my car spends", or "there is not enough
parking space in the downtown area of the city", or "my favorite skim milk",
etc. And they will be right - for them these are critical.

When Paul was asking the question, it is also interesting to see the
responses, and the way they were given. We don't believe one can have a
discussion with people who already have an opinion on something. Once they
have an opinion, they are not going to change it, therefore the discussion
will be only for the sake of the discussion, not to achieve something
fruitful.

Best,
Veni
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/daf453fc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/daf453fc/attachment.txt>

From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Oct  2 06:07:31 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:07:31 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-328002-678441-2007.10.01-11.33.36--kboakye1#yahoo.co.uk@lists.iisd.ca>
Message-ID: <616924.57041.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Thanks Tony for your prompt summary of the e-conference.
   
  What are your thoughts on the following:
   
  "One solution proposed was that funding be offered to
 facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within
 their sub-region where they could effectively participate."
   
  This proposal was submitted under the thread "OVERCOMING CAPACITY ISSUES THROUGH ONLINE PARTICIPATION".
   
  I am of the opinion that most of the time those selected may submit a very good application but it might well be that they may not effectively participate due to lack of sufficient knowledge regarding the issues being discussed. Lack of knowledge may be mainly due to practical knowledge or exposure but not necessarily a lack of theoretical knowledge.
   
  So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building training activities that will help select people to represent the regions at International conferences; those the region is confident enough to represent them and to have a message. They will be required to submit a report upon return. And while the International event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other Internet Governance related activities in their respective regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.
   
  The centres will also take into consideration access for disabled participants.
   
  The current way of selecting participants on an ad hoc basis does not benefit their respective regions and countries, and I may even venture to say is money down the drain. Participants are not accountable to anyone and when they return can choose never to talk about the conference to anybody. I am talking from experience here, having twice participated in ICANN conferences on fellowship. I know too many people who have also participated in the past. i think the most important thing is not just to offer people fellowship to attend a conference or a meeting.
   
  Regards,
  Kwasi
   
  This is just a rough idea, but I believe, it can be closely looked at and discussed.
  

Tony Vetter <tvetter at iisd.ca> wrote:
  Dear All, 

This final post marks the end of this e-conference. I wanted to thank those who were able to spare the time to participate in IISD's e-conference on Internet governance and sustainable development. 

Your contributions of ideas and considerations will help inform the creation of a booklet on IISD's Internet governance and sustainable development project, which will contain short editorials on each of the pair of papers that were posted for your review at the e-conference website (HYPERLINK http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ ), along with our conclusions regarding common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and where lessons from one side might inform progress on the other.

IISD will be releasing this booklet at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Rio de Janeiro (HYPERLINK http://www.intgovforum.org/ http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), as well as the 3rd Global Knowledge Conference in Kuala Lumpur (HYPERLINK http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ ).

I invite you all to read my summary below of the key discussions which took place during this e-conference. I would be interested to hear anyone's ideas on what they think we should focus our work on next. Please email your thoughts on this to tvetter at iisd.ca.

Governance processes 
================= 
In this discussion thread some key challenges facing Internet governance (IG) were outlined by participants. The absence of adequate infrastructure and the skills required to effectively participate in the IG debate were highlighted as challenges facing most developing countries. One participant shared the observation that some governments lack the motivation to develop IG policies and show interest in decision making processes as a result of viewing the Internet as a turf they cannot control. Linking the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the IG debate was acknowledged as an effective way to bring issues important to developing countries to the fore of the discussion, like access, security, open standards and information rights . However one frustration noted was that in the actual IG forum it is often a subset of issues that gets most of the attention at the expense of others. This process of issue prioritization was acknowledged to be a complex and difficult one for
 developing countries to influence since it requires effective participation at national, regional and international levels. One approach to this challenge offered by a participant was to create the incentive for national investment in the capacity to participate through the fostering of ICT integration strategies based on grassroots economic activities that can also earn the government revenue. 

Language as a barrier to participation 
=========================== 
The discussion thread on language as a barrier to participation featured two distinct and opposing points of view. Some participants felt that requiring a proficiency in English was a significant barrier and that offering conferences, materials and capacity building programs in more languages would enhance participation by developing countries. One participant felt that the nuances of policies and their principles are often difficult for non-native English speakers to grasp. It was suggested we should acknowledge that being able to uses ones native language represented a distinct advantage by allowing one to exercise authority over the meaning of words. Others felt that English should be accepted as the universal language for international meetings and that people should come prepared accordingly. It was even suggested by one participant that the Internet is more interesting and useful in English. Several participants felt that international meetings like the IGF should be
 leveraged as venues to offer language training to encourage people to learn English. Underlying both sides of this debate is the challenge of being able to effectively communicate global issues either through the filter of translation to multiple languages, or through the filter of comprehension for those participating in English as a non-native language. For example is the term governance interpreted as a multistakeholder activity under the watchful eyes of the global internet constituency, or is it an exercise of power and authority.

Overcoming capacity issues through online participation 
======================================== 
A question raised by one participant was whether we effectively exploit the potential for online participation as a solution for overcoming the capacity issues facing many who wish to participate in international dialogues. It was pointed out that not enough important events support remote access, the ones that do poorly publicize this support, training to organize remote participation is lacking, and there is insufficient sharing of information on available tools. This prompted many other participants to highlight the barriers faced by many in developing countries of inadequate access (simple low bandwidth access can cost as much as a day of income per hour), inadequate infrastructure (repeated electricity failures leading to equipment damage), and knowledge to participate (language difficulties and lacking skills). Some reported being able to access the internet for free at universities and that they were sometimes used as points of access to attend e-conferences however
 this was not consistent across the board. Many reported that students had to often pay for access, and that often a small amount of bandwidth is being shared between hundreds of users making participating in e-conferences impractical. One solution proposed was that funding be offered to facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within their sub-region where they could effectively participate. Another example for overcoming these barriers included the leveraging other forms of connectivity such as SMS to facilitate participation by those lacking adequate Internet access by proxy as demonstrated by ACSIS members. In summary many seemed to agree that lack of access was the main issue and that solutions to this should be the top priority of all national plans of action, and a focal point for the dialog between government, the private sector and civil society. 

IG and SD policy convergence 
====================== 
I started this discussion thread suggesting a motivation for IG and SD policy convergence based on the idea that those who would like to see SD work as an organizing principle for governments and business need to embed these values in our social, economic and political systems and that the IG debate has a critical role to play for seeing this happen. One participant made the point that the sharing of knowledge is central to this process and that this could challenge the survival of local languages and alternate ethos. So the question was asked whether SD practitioners need to acknowledge a trade off between realising the benefits of inclusion in the information society versus protecting traditional knowledge, cultures and practices. One participant offered an excellent example based on milk production that suggested that if a technology solves a particular need it becomes an enabler of the community and hence gets easily absorbed into their lives regardless of language and
 cultural barriers. Further investigation of the value chain in agriculture processes for ideas on how to infuse technology in this manner seemed well justified. It would certainly be encouraging to see a repeat of such scenarios where rural people absorb technology this quickly.

Thanks again to everyone. 

Tony Vetter
Project Officer, Knowledge Communications
International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ottawa, Canada
1-613-288-2024
http://www.iisd.org 


---
You are currently subscribed to igsd as: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk.
To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.iisd.ca:81/u?id=328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7&n=T&l=igsd&o=678441
or send a blank email to leave-678441-328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7 at lists.iisd.ca



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/160d6867/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/160d6867/attachment.txt>

From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Oct  2 06:25:35 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:25:35 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40710020201ka5a68fcta1162e6c0af9c13d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <550073.95082.qm@web25509.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Veni,
   
  You summmed it all up in the following:
   
  "When you have hot water 24x7, you don't even think about the people who have never had hot water, or for the ones, who have limited access to water. Do you want to bet that for some of the people on the list from the West/North part of the world water is not among the critical resources of their everyday life; and if you ask them what's critical for them, you may find out answers like "how much gas my car spends", or "there is not enough parking space in the downtown area of the city", or "my favorite skim milk", etc. And they will be right - for them these are critical."

  Cheers,
  Kwasi

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
  Hi, Jeremy and all. 

You are quoting the WGIG Background Report, but see the beginning of that same document: 


1.         This Background Report accompanies and is complementary to the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (The WGIG Report). It includes much of the work produced in the course of the Working Group process and reflects the wide variety of opinions held within the group as well as many comments made by stakeholders during the consultation process. The Background Report does not have the same status as the WGIG Report, which is a short consensus document for policy makers. However, the Background Report can be used as a reference in that it provides a summary of the process and various issue papers, with some additional thoughts and considerations about potential solutions for issues not covered in detail in the WGIG Report. If not every member of the group agrees with every word, they all agree with this approach and the Background Report makes clear whether an argument or opinion is shared by the entire group or only by some of its members.


  It is not by accident that the WGIG report is the official document, and this is the Background Report. In the UN world every detail is important, and you can pick more of the words in the above mentioned paragraph to see it for yourself. 

Perhaps some think that it is much more fun to discuss issues where there's controversy (you don't believe me? then think that the tabloids have bigger circulation than the serious newspapers), but at ISOC-Bulgaria (and in Bulgaria in general) we understand quite well that if we want to achieve something, we need to focus on the things that unite us, not on the ones which divide us. 

In the current discussion for example we see that, yet again, people with North/West thinking (and that does not eliminate Australia:-) have different understanding of what's critical for the Internet. It is understandable - when you have high-speed Internet at home, and thousands of wi-fi spots all over the country, and sometimes whole cities, which are with wi-fi, provided by the municipality, of course that for you the perspective is different. 

When you have hot water 24x7, you don't even think about the people who have never had hot water, or for the ones, who have limited access to water. Do you want to bet that for some of the people on the list from the West/North part of the world water is not among the critical resources of their everyday life; and if you ask them what's critical for them, you may find out answers like "how much gas my car spends", or "there is not enough parking space in the downtown area of the city", or "my favorite skim milk", etc. And they will be right - for them these are critical. 

When Paul was asking the question, it is also interesting to see the responses, and the way they were given. We don't believe one can have a discussion with people who already have an opinion on something. Once they have an opinion, they are not going to change it, therefore the discussion will be only for the sake of the discussion, not to achieve something fruitful. 

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



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/f80096b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/f80096b9/attachment.txt>

From J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk  Tue Oct  2 08:35:53 2007
From: J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk (J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 13:35:53 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.44.0710021334120.5752-100000@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>


One comment: Radio Mille Collines

[Note: this occurred in an environment where alternate points of view were
not suppressed]

Cheers,

Jonathan
PS if the reference is too cryptic, see e.g.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7D61E31F930A35750C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print



On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
> As usual, very historically informed and interesting comments from Wolfgang. the emphasis W places on the independent judiciary is critical. At a recent speech here in Syracuse by US Supreme Court Justice Roberts, he read to us a constitutional provision guaranteeing freedom of expression and association. It was actually stronger in some ways than the US First Amendment. But it was from the 1970s-era Soviet Union. The main difference between USSR and USA was the independent judiciary.
>
> Wolfgang, I have a question about this:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom
> >of the media, in particular the radio to spread
> >racist propoganda which paved the way for killing
> >six millions jews - it was very understandable that
> >the fathers of the post WWII German Constitution
> >agreed that nazi and racist propaganda has to be illegal
>
> Didn't the Nazis suppress a "free" media, they only allowed their own view to be broadcast?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  2 08:53:35 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue,  2 Oct 2007 14:53:35 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <616924.57041.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message from kwasi
	boakye-akyeampong on Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:07:31 +0100 (BST))
References: <616924.57041.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20071002125335.5D3902202D9@quill.bollow.ch>

Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building
> centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building
> training activities that will help select people to represent the
> regions at International conferences; those the region is confident
> enough to represent them and to have a message. They will be
> required to submit a report upon return. And while the International
> event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the
> center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other
> Internet Governance related activities in their respective
> regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and
> other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.

Are there sufficient incentives for these "governments and other
bodies" to fund such centres in the first place, and to make the
centres operate with integrity, i.e. so that they select
representative who are truly representative of the respective 
regions rather than of some influential special interests?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Oct  2 09:00:30 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:00:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
	"Critical Internet resource"?
Message-ID: <s70208bf.017@gwia203.syr.edu>

Veni, Kwasi,

With all due respect, and yeah maybe I'm being pedantic, but we are
talking of definitions after all. You are confounding critical
resources, and critical Internet resources.

Noone's arguing that food, water, shelter, and safety aren't absolutely
critical, for everyone on earth. But that wasn't the question, was it?  


When one gets to power then we can start debating 'critical information
infrastructure' as the phrase was popularized some years back; but that
also wasn't Paul's question.  Though we can all agree its further
development, worldwide, is an important objective.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/2/2007 6:25 AM >>>
Veni,
   
  You summmed it all up in the following:
   
  "When you have hot water 24x7, you don't even think about the people
who have never had hot water, or for the ones, who have limited access
to water. Do you want to bet that for some of the people on the list
from the West/North part of the world water is not among the critical
resources of their everyday life; and if you ask them what's critical
for them, you may find out answers like "how much gas my car spends", or
"there is not enough parking space in the downtown area of the city", or
"my favorite skim milk", etc. And they will be right - for them these
are critical."

  Cheers,
  Kwasi

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
  Hi, Jeremy and all. 

You are quoting the WGIG Background Report, but see the beginning of
that same document: 


1.         This Background Report accompanies and is complementary to
the Report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (The WGIG
Report). It includes much of the work produced in the course of the
Working Group process and reflects the wide variety of opinions held
within the group as well as many comments made by stakeholders during
the consultation process. The Background Report does not have the same
status as the WGIG Report, which is a short consensus document for
policy makers. However, the Background Report can be used as a reference
in that it provides a summary of the process and various issue papers,
with some additional thoughts and considerations about potential
solutions for issues not covered in detail in the WGIG Report. If not
every member of the group agrees with every word, they all agree with
this approach and the Background Report makes clear whether an argument
or opinion is shared by the entire group or only by some of its
members.


  It is not by accident that the WGIG report is the official document,
and this is the Background Report. In the UN world every detail is
important, and you can pick more of the words in the above mentioned
paragraph to see it for yourself. 

Perhaps some think that it is much more fun to discuss issues where
there's controversy (you don't believe me? then think that the tabloids
have bigger circulation than the serious newspapers), but at
ISOC-Bulgaria (and in Bulgaria in general) we understand quite well that
if we want to achieve something, we need to focus on the things that
unite us, not on the ones which divide us. 

In the current discussion for example we see that, yet again, people
with North/West thinking (and that does not eliminate Australia:-) have
different understanding of what's critical for the Internet. It is
understandable - when you have high-speed Internet at home, and
thousands of wi-fi spots all over the country, and sometimes whole
cities, which are with wi-fi, provided by the municipality, of course
that for you the perspective is different. 

When you have hot water 24x7, you don't even think about the people who
have never had hot water, or for the ones, who have limited access to
water. Do you want to bet that for some of the people on the list from
the West/North part of the world water is not among the critical
resources of their everyday life; and if you ask them what's critical
for them, you may find out answers like "how much gas my car spends", or
"there is not enough parking space in the downtown area of the city", or
"my favorite skim milk", etc. And they will be right - for them these
are critical. 

When Paul was asking the question, it is also interesting to see the
responses, and the way they were given. We don't believe one can have a
discussion with people who already have an opinion on something. Once
they have an opinion, they are not going to change it, therefore the
discussion will be only for the sake of the discussion, not to achieve
something fruitful. 

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 



..............................................................................................................................
  "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for
others, what am I?    And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal
 
..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this
month.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nne75 at yahoo.com  Tue Oct  2 09:01:12 2007
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 06:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <20071002125335.5D3902202D9@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <145310.31786.qm@web50202.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi people

Unless otherwise, the Africa Regional Action Plan for the Knowledge Economy - ARAPKE - actually has that particular project of subregional CS training centers.  I recall part of the objectives was to even include translations of global issues to subregional African languages and specificities.  

We were then convinced that putting such initiatives under the continental umbrella was more likely to ensure operationability and sustainablilty.  But the governmental process is a long one...

If any thing were to be happening on that project I would have known.

Because I originally wrote the proposal and it has been 3 years already...

Now, I think that time has come for the CS lead.  In certain areas, if the CS leads, governments will follow...

Nnenna

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong  wrote:

Are there sufficient incentives for these "governments and other
bodies" to fund such centres in the first place, and to make the
centres operate with integrity, i.e. so that they select
representative who are truly representative of the respective 
regions rather than of some influential special interests?

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
____________________________________________________________
Y

       
---------------------------------
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on Yahoo! TV.    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/48d9abf1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/48d9abf1/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Tue Oct  2 09:17:30 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:17:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Public Voice call on OECD participation
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DF3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DF3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <47024796.041d640a.63cc.7e3b@mx.google.com>

At 17:14 10/1/2007  -0400, you wrote:
><Here are more detailed notes, thanks to Allison Knight of EPIC>

Just to add to Milton's e-mail some more important information, which 
one should have in mind, when talking about the Public Voice:

From: "Allison Knight" <knight at epic.org>
To: "'veni markovski'" <veni at veni.com>
Subject: RE: Public Voice meeting 6 Report

Please remind everyone on your lists that
they are welcome to join the Public Voice mailing list by contacting me. And
if anyone posts ideas regarding themes/policy issues/agenda items for civil
society participation in the OECD Ministerial, please forward them to me.
Many thanks,
Allison


best,
Veni

>The Public Voice - Meeting 6
>September 20, 2007
>
>1. Civil Society Participation in the Upcoming OECD Forum and
>Ministerial

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Oct  2 10:11:39 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:11:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] Burmese Internet misgovernance
Message-ID: <C3281E3B.DBA2%drake@hei.unige.ch>

While less fun than contemplating whether McTim¹s truck batteries are CIRs,
this may nevertheless be of interest...

Bloggers silenced as curbs bring internet blackout
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330849796-111494,00.html


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/245a4039/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/245a4039/attachment.txt>

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Tue Oct  2 10:12:54 2007
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 07:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <s70208bf.017@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <989867.9214.qm@web50201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Lee, all

The question was this: for me as an Internet User... what is CIR?  Unless you want to tell people what is critical to their internet use, you should listen to them.

IMHO, the question should have been: what Internet resource allocation issues are critical to users all over the world?

In which case, we will be discussing issues that concern all users in all places.  If you want to pinpoint certain issues and get particular feedback on them, then go ahead.  Then you will probably know that RIRs, domain names and others may not make the top list.

Nnenna

Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote: Veni, Kwasi,

With all due respect, and yeah maybe I'm being pedantic, but we are
talking of definitions after all. You are confounding critical
resources, and critical Internet resources.

Noone's arguing that food, water, shelter, and safety aren't absolutely
critical, for everyone on earth. But that wasn't the question, was it?  


When one gets to power then we can start debating 'critical information
infrastructure' as the phrase was popularized some years back; but that
also wasn't Paul's question.  Though we can all agree its further
development, worldwide, is an important objective.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/2/2007 6:25 AM >>>


       
---------------------------------
 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/8bada1b8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/8bada1b8/attachment.txt>

From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Oct  2 11:26:56 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:26:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
	"Critical Internet resource"?
Message-ID: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>



Then I suppose Paul meat to ask ' what is critical for Internet users'?


A fine question, just not a question focused on critical Internet
resources.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> nne75 at yahoo.com 10/2/2007 10:12 AM >>>
Lee, all

The question was this: for me as an Internet User... what is CIR? 
Unless you want to tell people what is critical to their internet use,
you should listen to them.

IMHO, the question should have been: what Internet resource allocation
issues are critical to users all over the world?

In which case, we will be discussing issues that concern all users in
all places.  If you want to pinpoint certain issues and get particular
feedback on them, then go ahead.  Then you will probably know that RIRs,
domain names and others may not make the top list.

Nnenna

Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote: Veni, Kwasi,

With all due respect, and yeah maybe I'm being pedantic, but we are
talking of definitions after all. You are confounding critical
resources, and critical Internet resources.

Noone's arguing that food, water, shelter, and safety aren't
absolutely
critical, for everyone on earth. But that wasn't the question, was it? 



When one gets to power then we can start debating 'critical
information
infrastructure' as the phrase was popularized some years back; but
that
also wasn't Paul's question.  Though we can all agree its further
development, worldwide, is an important objective.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/2/2007 6:25 AM >>>


       
---------------------------------
 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  2 11:58:22 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

McTim:
You're right, the TA is vague and even sloppy on this question. 

As you point out, para 58 speaks as if CIR were something other than names and addresses. That is the worst example. 

Para 70 is more coherent. That is the EU's work. It was clear from their "enhanced cooperation" proposal during WSIS that they wanted "policy principles" for the governance of names and addresses. This is documented in their proposal. 

And, during the debate over whether to include CIR in the IGF agenda, it was clear that it meant primarily names and addresses. 

As for routing tables, that was my stab at recognizing the strong relationship between address allocation and routing, particularly route aggregation, which I'm sure you understand more or less.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 5:34 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Cc: Paul Wilson
> Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
> Internet resource"?
> 
> Milton,
> 
> I was hoping NOT to have to jump in on this thread, but this red flag
> is just too tempting ;-)
> 
> On 10/1/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> > Paul:
> > Critical internet resources are the virtual resources required to
> maintain the Internet's connectivity: IP addresses, domain names, routing
> tables. The term derives from the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> Reading the TA, CIR aren't defined in it (below are all instances
> where the term "critical internet resources" appear in the TA), and
> there is certainly no mention of routing tables anywhere in the TA.
> But I am curious about their inclusion in your list, if you have a
> routing table, that implies a router, so aren't routers also a CIR
> under your definition?
> 
> "58. We recognize that Internet governance includes more than Internet
> naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public
> policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the
> security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and
> issues pertaining to the use of the Internet."
> 
> So this seems to suggest that naming and addressing AREN'T CIR
> according to the TA!! Perhaps this is an example of "sloppy thinking"?
> 
> "70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation
> should include the development of globally-applicable principles on
> public policy issues associated with the coordination and management
> of critical Internet resources. In this regard, we call upon the
> organizations responsible for essential tasks associated with the
> Internet to contribute to creating an environment that facilitates
> this development of public policy principles."
> 
> Again, CIRs undefined!
> 
> and of course:
> 
> 72. j. Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet
> resources.
> 
> >
> > (Arguably, one could include bandwidth and the relevant interconnection
> arrangements, but little is to be gained by lumping bandwidth, which falls
> under a completely different business and governance regime, with
> addressing resources. imho this is a result of sloppy thinking, which the
> Tunis Agenda often contains.)
> >
> 
> One could include many things under the umbrella of CIR, as it is
> undefined by the TA.
> 
> I know that if I am doing "bushnetworking" in Africa, I'll need:
> 
> power (truck batteries, solar panels, inverters/solar chargers,
> earthing kit, etc)
> high sites (for wireless repeaters) or a VSAT dish
> network interfaces
> Outdoor cat 5 cables, jacks
> wifi routers or high-powered cards
> a truck (with diesel) to get the kit to remote sites
> physical security
> 
> Of course the networking equipment needs port assignments (IANA)
> protocols (IANA again), IP addresses (IANA again!, but not necessarily
> a RIR), a default route/gateway, an ASN (for the whole network)
> (IANA/RIR), however, once I have those things, (plus lots of other
> stuff standardized by the IETF/W3C) I still couldn't get a connection
> to a remote site without the above list of things that need to get on
> the truck!
> 
> > I must challenge your approach to this question. You are Director
> General of an organization that allocates and assigns internet resources
> (IP addresses). The commercial Internet service providers who join your
> organization and pay rather substantial membership fees to do so, no doubt
> think these resources are critical.
> >
> 
> I must challenge your challenge.
> 
> Countries and academic institutions and other folk join APNIC as
> LIR/NIRs as well as "commercial ISPs".
> 
> RIR fees are calculated on a "cost recovery" basis, so they aren't
> "substantial" for most members. Annual fees are approximately the same
> as the costs of many, (if not most) list members expenses to the IGF.
> 
> > Are you really telling us that you do not know what we mean by "critical
> internet resources"? Or are you trying to suggest that the resources you
> allocate are not critical compared to others?
> >
> 
> I suspect it's the former, not the latter.  Since TA didn't define
> them, well they are subjective, innit?
> 
> > If it is the latter, I can see no purpose to this question other than an
> attempt to divert attention away from your own policy domain and move it
> into others. And I think that's wrong.
> >
> > Certainly telecom access and electrical power, as some other messages
> have suggested, is critical to development and to the Internet, in any
> country. Neither are "critical Internet resource" of the type invoked by
> the Tunis Agenda.
> 
> Again, TA does NOT define what is a "CIR"  If you are going to invoke
> a document, you should be sure that it says what you think it says (or
> perhaps want it to say).
> 
> >
> > If you start talking about what environmental factors are important to
> the internet, then no doubt literacy would be critical. But Paul, civil
> society didn't put you on a critical internet resources panel to discuss
> power grids or literacy. You have no expertise on that, and the UN
> Internet Governance Forum is not the appropriate place to discuss policies
> related to that.
> >
> > So my advice to you is, stick to your knitting. Be prepared to discuss
> how the policies YOU make at APNIC
> 
> So, this is what made me jump in here.  RIRs DON'T MAKE ANY POLICIES!!
>  It's not the membership of the RIR itself that make the policies,
> it's the members of the RIR communities that make the policies, this
> can include end-users, CS and gov'ts as well as the boffins who work
> for "commercial ISPs" (what you really should use in this context is
> "LIRs/NIRs", not ISPs).
> 
> Take me for example, I work with several LIRs, but don't represent any
> of them on RIR mailing lists, I represent myself.  I think that this
> is the case for many if not most participants on those lists.  These
> folk have the health and growth of the network foremost in mind when
> discussing policy, not necessarily the commercial interests of their
> employers.
> 
> > affect users, and how those policies might be improved. Don't seek
> excuses from users for not addressing those issues.
> 
> I hate to abuse a late equine, but if you want to improve those
> policies, you should join those processes.  Can you help Paul with his
> knitting?  IIRC, Ray has already invited you to join his circle.
> 
> 
> --
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Tue Oct  2 12:23:08 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 18:23:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>

hi,

i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question  
itself and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is  
only one answer and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?

some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some  
people think there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben  
here before).  is only the narrow definition valid?

if so, i do not understand it.

and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are  
they supposed to be critical too?

a.


On 2 okt 2007, at 17.26, Lee McKnight wrote:

>
>
> Then I suppose Paul meat to ask ' what is critical for Internet  
> users'?
>
>
> A fine question, just not a question focused on critical Internet
> resources.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/21f6075b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/21f6075b/attachment.txt>

From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Oct  2 12:23:48 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:23:48 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <20071002125335.5D3902202D9@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <563635.70232.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

With the governments I think there is. All governments have drafted National ICT documents. If we can press the right buttons, we can get them to support some of these initiatives. Believe most of these governments are not tyrants as we are wont to suggest. Some of the bad policies are due to ignorance; the issue of VOIP in Ghana is a typical example.

So Norbert, my answer to your question is yes.

Kwasi

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong  wrote:

> So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building
> centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building
> training activities that will help select people to represent the
> regions at International conferences; those the region is confident
> enough to represent them and to have a message. They will be
> required to submit a report upon return. And while the International
> event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the
> center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other
> Internet Governance related activities in their respective
> regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and
> other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.

Are there sufficient incentives for these "governments and other
bodies" to fund such centres in the first place, and to make the
centres operate with integrity, i.e. so that they select
representative who are truly representative of the respective 
regions rather than of some influential special interests?

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



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/457efad9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/457efad9/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Tue Oct  2 12:32:58 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:32:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
  "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
Message-ID: <470272f1.0735640a.09a9.ffff8601@mx.google.com>

Avri,
there's nothing wrong with the question, you are right.
What's wrong is that as many people you have, as many questions they 
can come with. I'd suggest that the people who have different 
versions of that question, go ahead and publish them at facebook, 
linkedin, etc., and see what kind of responses they will get.
I don't suppose, I am sure what Paul wanted to ask - he wanted to ask 
what he asked.

:-)

veni

At 18:23 10/2/2007  +0200, you wrote:
>hi,
>
>i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question 
>itself and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is 
>only one answer and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?
>
>some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some 
>people think there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben 
>here before).  is only the narrow definition valid?
>
>if so, i do not understand it.
>
>and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are 
>they supposed to be critical too?
>
>a.
>
>
>On 2 okt 2007, at 17.26, Lee McKnight wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Then I suppose Paul meat to ask ' what is critical for Internet users'?
>>
>>
>>
>>A fine question, just not a question focused on critical Internet
>>
>>resources.
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Oct  2 12:45:28 2007
From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:45:28 -0500
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
References: <616924.57041.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0315E845@proton.iisd.ca>

Dear Kwasi,
 
I think that your ideas below along with those you raised in our e-conference have a lot of merit.
 
I think that the biggest challenge with such a proposal is finding an appropriate organization which can represent regional interests that stakeholders from all countries in that region can agree to. Such an organization would be necessary to manage the use of funds dedicated to fulfilling this need and selecting appropriate sites for such centres.
 
I saw Nnenna's post mentioning similar such activity through ARAPKE but it seems that project has fallen dormant. I am curious about his suggestion for a CS lead and was wondering if there are organization like the Africa Civil Society for the Information Society - ACSIS that could attract the necessary funding and take the lead on such an idea?
 
Regards,
 
Tony
 

________________________________

From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong [mailto:kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: Tue 02/10/2007 5:07 AM
To: IGSD; Internet governance
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development


Thanks Tony for your prompt summary of the e-conference.
 
What are your thoughts on the following:
 
"One solution proposed was that funding be offered to
facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within
their sub-region where they could effectively participate."
 
This proposal was submitted under the thread "OVERCOMING CAPACITY ISSUES THROUGH ONLINE PARTICIPATION".
 
I am of the opinion that most of the time those selected may submit a very good application but it might well be that they may not effectively participate due to lack of sufficient knowledge regarding the issues being discussed. Lack of knowledge may be mainly due to practical knowledge or exposure but not necessarily a lack of theoretical knowledge.
 
So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building training activities that will help select people to represent the regions at International conferences; those the region is confident enough to represent them and to have a message. They will be required to submit a report upon return. And while the International event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other Internet Governance related activities in their respective regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.
 
The centres will also take into consideration access for disabled participants.
 
The current way of selecting participants on an ad hoc basis does not benefit their respective regions and countries, and I may even venture to say is money down the drain. Participants are not accountable to anyone and when they return can choose never to talk about the conference to anybody. I am talking from experience here, having twice participated in ICANN conferences on fellowship. I know too many people who have also participated in the past. i think the most important thing is not just to offer people fellowship to attend a conference or a meeting.
 
Regards,
Kwasi
 
This is just a rough idea, but I believe, it can be closely looked at and discussed.


Tony Vetter <tvetter at iisd.ca> wrote:

	Dear All, 
	
	This final post marks the end of this e-conference. I wanted to thank those who were able to spare the time to participate in IISD's e-conference on Internet governance and sustainable development. 
	
	Your contributions of ideas and considerations will help inform the creation of a booklet on IISD's Internet governance and sustainable development project, which will contain short editorials on each of the pair of papers that were posted for your review at the e-conference website (HYPERLINK http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ ), along with our conclusions regarding common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and where lessons from one side might inform progress on the other.
	
	IISD will be releasing this booklet at the upcoming Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting in Rio de Janeiro (HYPERLINK http://www.intgovforum.org/ http://www.intgovforum.org/ ), as well as the 3rd Global Knowledge Conference in Kuala Lumpur (HYPERLINK http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ http://www.gkpeventsonthefuture.org/GK3/ ).
	
	I invite you all to read my summary below of the key discussions which took place during this e-conference. I would be interested to hear anyone's ideas on what they think we should focus our work on next. Please email your thoughts on this to tvetter at iisd.ca.
	
	Governance processes 
	================= 
	In this discussion thread some key challenges facing Internet governance (IG) were outlined by participants. The absence of adequate infrastructure and the skills required to effectively participate in the IG debate were highlighted as challenges facing most developing countries. One participant shared the observation that some governments lack the motivation to develop IG policies and show interest in decision making processes as a result of viewing the Internet as a turf they cannot control. Linking the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to the IG debate was acknowledged as an effective way to bring issues important to developing countries to the fore of the discussion, like access, security, open standards and information rights . However one frustration noted was that in the actual IG forum it is often a subset of issues that gets most of the attention at the expense of others. This process of issue prioritization was acknowledged to be a complex and difficult one for developing countries to influence since it requires effective participation at national, regional and international levels. One approach to this challenge offered by a participant was to create the incentive for national investment in the capacity to participate through the fostering of ICT integration strategies based on grassroots economic activities that can also earn the government revenue. 
	
	Language as a barrier to participation 
	=========================== 
	The discussion thread on language as a barrier to participation featured two distinct and opposing points of view. Some participants felt that requiring a proficiency in English was a significant barrier and that offering conferences, materials and capacity building programs in more languages would enhance participation by developing countries. One participant felt that the nuances of policies and their principles are often difficult for non-native English speakers to grasp. It was suggested we should acknowledge that being able to uses ones native language represented a distinct advantage by allowing one to exercise authority over the meaning of words. Others felt that English should be accepted as the universal language for international meetings and that people should come prepared accordingly. It was even suggested by one participant that the Internet is more interesting and useful in English. Several participants felt that international meetings like the IGF should be leveraged as venues to offer language training to encourage people to learn English. Underlying both sides of this debate is the challenge of being able to effectively communicate global issues either through the filter of translation to multiple languages, or through the filter of comprehension for those participating in English as a non-native language. For example is the term governance interpreted as a multistakeholder activity under the watchful eyes of the global internet constituency, or is it an exercise of power and authority.
	
	Overcoming capacity issues through online participation 
	======================================== 
	A question raised by one participant was whether we effectively exploit the potential for online participation as a solution for overcoming the capacity issues facing many who wish to participate in international dialogues. It was pointed out that not enough important events support remote access, the ones that do poorly publicize this support, training to organize remote participation is lacking, and there is insufficient sharing of information on available tools. This prompted many other participants to highlight the barriers faced by many in developing countries of inadequate access (simple low bandwidth access can cost as much as a day of income per hour), inadequate infrastructure (repeated electricity failures leading to equipment damage), and knowledge to participate (language difficulties and lacking skills). Some reported being able to access the internet for free at universities and that they were sometimes used as points of access to attend e-conferences however this was not consistent across the board. Many reported that students had to often pay for access, and that often a small amount of bandwidth is being shared between hundreds of users making participating in e-conferences impractical. One solution proposed was that funding be offered to facilitate travel for participants to an adequate access point within their sub-region where they could effectively participate. Another example for overcoming these barriers included the leveraging other forms of connectivity such as SMS to facilitate participation by those lacking adequate Internet access by proxy as demonstrated by ACSIS members. In summary many seemed to agree that lack of access was the main issue and that solutions to this should be the top priority of all national plans of action, and a focal point for the dialog between government, the private sector and civil society. 
	
	IG and SD policy convergence 
	====================== 
	I started this discussion thread suggesting a motivation for IG and SD policy convergence based on the idea that those who would like to see SD work as an organizing principle for governments and business need to embed these values in our social, economic and political systems and that the IG debate has a critical role to play for seeing this happen. One participant made the point that the sharing of knowledge is central to this process and that this could challenge the survival of local languages and alternate ethos. So the question was asked whether SD practitioners need to acknowledge a trade off between realising the benefits of inclusion in the information society versus protecting traditional knowledge, cultures and practices. One participant offered an excellent example based on milk production that suggested that if a technology solves a particular need it becomes an enabler of the community and hence gets easily absorbed into their lives regardless of language and cultural barriers. Further investigation of the value chain in agriculture processes for ideas on how to infuse technology in this manner seemed well justified. It would certainly be encouraging to see a repeat of such scenarios where rural people absorb technology this quickly.
	
	Thanks again to everyone. 
	
	Tony Vetter
	Project Officer, Knowledge Communications
	International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ottawa, Canada
	1-613-288-2024
	http://www.iisd.org 
	
	
	---
	You are currently subscribed to igsd as: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk.
	To unsubscribe click here: http://lists.iisd.ca:81/u?id=328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7&n=T&l=igsd&o=678441
	or send a blank email to leave-678441-328002.ba2f88e7221930bf44d1d9a5f4e905c7 at lists.iisd.ca
	




..............................................................................................................................
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?" - Rabbi Hillal
..............................................................................................................................

________________________________

Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Try it now <http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTEydmViNG02BF9TAzIxMTQ3MTcxOTAEc2VjA21haWwEc2xrA3RhZ2xpbmU> .
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 11957 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/83ceae86/attachment.bin>

From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Oct  2 12:49:02 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:49:02 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <117990.9817.qm@web25511.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Lee,

In that case we would have to define who or what we mean by Internet users.

Is the Internet user the one who can afford broadband Internet connection at a fraction of their income,  can alternatively go to public libraries and use the Internet for free, and when a student or lecturer can have access to an always on high speed Internet connection; and can also have 24/7 Internet access at the University library?

I think we all know the characteristics of "the other" Internet user?

IMHO understanding where each person is coming from would be sufficient for our interaction since it is almost impossible for all of us to agree on a common definition since our experiences are different.

My definition of "Internet users" in Ghana will obviously be different from that of Canada.

Regards,
Kwasi

Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote: 

Then I suppose Paul meat to ask ' what is critical for Internet users'?


A fine question, just not a question focused on critical Internet
resources.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> nne75 at yahoo.com 10/2/2007 10:12 AM >>>
Lee, all

The question was this: for me as an Internet User... what is CIR? 
Unless you want to tell people what is critical to their internet use,
you should listen to them.

IMHO, the question should have been: what Internet resource allocation
issues are critical to users all over the world?

In which case, we will be discussing issues that concern all users in
all places.  If you want to pinpoint certain issues and get particular
feedback on them, then go ahead.  Then you will probably know that RIRs,
domain names and others may not make the top list.

Nnenna

Lee McKnight  wrote: Veni, Kwasi,

With all due respect, and yeah maybe I'm being pedantic, but we are
talking of definitions after all. You are confounding critical
resources, and critical Internet resources.

Noone's arguing that food, water, shelter, and safety aren't
absolutely
critical, for everyone on earth. But that wasn't the question, was it? 



When one gets to power then we can start debating 'critical
information
infrastructure' as the phrase was popularized some years back; but
that
also wasn't Paul's question.  Though we can all agree its further
development, worldwide, is an important objective.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/2/2007 6:25 AM >>>


       
---------------------------------
 Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/46fe93cc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071002/46fe93cc/attachment.txt>

From vivek at itforchange.net  Wed Oct  3 01:01:28 2007
From: vivek at itforchange.net (Vivek Vaidyanathan)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:31:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development and Information Society Policies - October 5th - 7th, 2007
Message-ID: <20071003050132.46200A6CE3@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Dear All,

 

Apologies for cross posting.

 

Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development
and Information Society Policies - October 5th - 7th, 2007, Bangalore 

 

A Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development
and Information Society Policies will be held on October 5-7, 2007 in
Bangalore, India. The workshop is being co-organised by IT for Change, the
Association for Progressive Communications, the International Women's
Tribune Centre, ISIS International, and Gloria Bonder, the General
Coordinator of the Regional UNESCO Chair Women, Science and Technology in
Latin America.

 

The goal of the meeting will be to a) conduct a gender analysis of the
policy ecology of the information society and the approaches of critical
institutional players b) evolve an action plan for research and advocacy and
c) develop the structure and processes that facilitate and strengthen the
work of the network.

 

This workshop is by invitation only.

 

Best regards

Vivek

 

Vivek Vaidyanathan

IT for Change (ITfC)

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

Tel:(+91 80) 26654134, 26536890

Fax:(+91 80) 41461055

 <http://www.ITforChange.net> www.ITforChange.net

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/1e49ef12/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/1e49ef12/attachment.txt>

From vivek at itforchange.net  Wed Oct  3 01:37:29 2007
From: vivek at itforchange.net (Vivek Vaidyanathan)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 11:07:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] Addendum to posting on 'Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development and Information Society Policies - October 5th - 7th, 2007'
Message-ID: <20071003053730.DE36CA6CBD@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Dear All,

 

This is an addendum to my earlier posting on the 'Strategy Workshop of the
Feminist Network on Gender, Development and Information Society Policies -
October 5th - 7th, 2007' being held in Bangalore.

 

More information on the workshop can be found at
http://gdispwiki.itforchange.net/

 

Best regards

Vivek

 

Vivek Vaidyanathan

IT for Change (ITfC)

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

Tel :( +91 80) 26654134, 26536890

Fax :( +91 80) 41461055

 <http://www.ITforChange.net> www.ITforChange.net

  _____  

From: Vivek Vaidyanathan [mailto:vivek at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 10:31 AM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender,
Development and Information Society Policies - October 5th - 7th, 2007

 

Dear All,

 

Apologies for cross posting.

 

Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development
and Information Society Policies - October 5th - 7th, 2007, Bangalore 

 

A Strategy Planning Workshop of the Feminist Network on Gender, Development
and Information Society Policies will be held on October 5-7, 2007 in
Bangalore, India. The workshop is being co-organised by IT for Change, the
Association for Progressive Communications, the International Women's
Tribune Centre, ISIS International, and Gloria Bonder, the General
Coordinator of the Regional UNESCO Chair Women, Science and Technology in
Latin America.

 

The goal of the meeting will be to a) conduct a gender analysis of the
policy ecology of the information society and the approaches of critical
institutional players b) evolve an action plan for research and advocacy and
c) develop the structure and processes that facilitate and strengthen the
work of the network.

 

This workshop is by invitation only.

 

Best regards

Vivek

 

Vivek Vaidyanathan

IT for Change (ITfC)

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

Tel:(+91 80) 26654134, 26536890

Fax:(+91 80) 41461055

 <http://www.ITforChange.net> www.ITforChange.net

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/f9be34bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/f9be34bd/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Oct  3 06:39:24 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 13:39:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest'
In-Reply-To: <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>

More research if anyone is interested:

http://www.id21.org/insights/insights69/index.html

-- 
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 siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  3 06:55:21 2007
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:55:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <563635.70232.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48495.33746.qm@web51012.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

 On the representations  on ICT   fora , I   would agree with you in  asking that it be looked at .It is becoming a regular affair that every ICT gathering (in any form and nature ) is held  outside africa.
 I hope some of these would be  brought  closer to Africa.Where held abroad, a special dispensation should be given to  Africa- like you said our african regulatory bodies,private sector,NGO,interest bodies, amongs others could be reached  to support.
knowledge (information) which  is a potent resource holds the key to unlocking our development. We  can't afford to compromise the  inclusion paradigm

 I   wish the international bodies would  see through some of the challenges they would put across as per the issue  being put across and afford  the call   a duty.
 After all, our knowledged society (brain drain comes to mind) have always  been "poached" by the developed society.
you will choose to make this arguement  unintelligent piece  but it is my worry and it it open to further discussion.
I don't look forward to paul rubbishing it like he did for the CIR !

what do you think?
ebenezer

 we need to build on our capacity as a people and as a continent!




kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: With the governments I think there is. All governments have drafted National ICT documents. If we can press the right buttons, we can get them to support some of these initiatives. Believe most of these governments are not tyrants as we are wont to suggest. Some of the bad policies are due to ignorance; the issue of VOIP in Ghana is a typical example.

So Norbert, my answer to your question is yes.

Kwasi

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong  wrote:

> So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building
> centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building
> training activities that will help select people to represent the
> regions at International conferences; those the region is confident
> enough to represent them and  to have a message. They will be
> required to submit a report upon return. And while the International
> event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the
> center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other
> Internet Governance related activities in their respective
> regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and
> other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.

Are there sufficient incentives for these "governments and other
bodies" to fund such centres in the first place, and to make the
centres operate with integrity, i.e. so that they select
representative who are truly representative of the respective 
regions rather than of some influential special interests?

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



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................
          

---------------------------------
  For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally,  mobile search that gives answers, not web links. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/12449bf6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/12449bf6/attachment.txt>

From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  3 06:55:56 2007
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 03:55:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <563635.70232.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <282106.55194.qm@web51004.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

 On the representations  on ICT   fora , I   would agree with you in  asking that it be looked at .It is becoming a regular affair that every ICT gathering (in any form and nature ) is held  outside africa.
 I hope some of these would be  brought  closer to Africa.Where held abroad, a special dispensation should be given to  Africa- like you said our african regulatory bodies,private sector,NGO,interest bodies, amongs others could be reached  to support.
knowledge (information) which  is a potent resource holds the key to unlocking our development. We  can't afford to compromise the  inclusion paradigm

 I   wish the international bodies would  see through some of the challenges they would put across as per the issue  being put across and afford  the call   a duty.
 After all, our knowledged society (brain drain comes to mind) have always  been "poached" by the developed society.
you will choose to make this arguement  unintelligent piece  but it is my worry and it it open to further discussion.
I don't look forward to paul rubbishing it like he did for the CIR !

what do you think?
ebenezer

 we need to build on our capacity as a people and as a continent!




kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: With the governments I think there is. All governments have drafted National ICT documents. If we can press the right buttons, we can get them to support some of these initiatives. Believe most of these governments are not tyrants as we are wont to suggest. Some of the bad policies are due to ignorance; the issue of VOIP in Ghana is a typical example.

So Norbert, my answer to your question is yes.

Kwasi

Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote: Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong  wrote:

> So what I am proposing is for these regional capacity building
> centres to be set up for all year training and capacity building
> training activities that will help select people to represent the
> regions at International conferences; those the region is confident
> enough to represent them and  to have a message. They will be
> required to submit a report upon return. And while the International
> event is taking place, we can have participation from others at the
> center. This center will serve both ICANN, IGF, and any other
> Internet Governance related activities in their respective
> regions. The centres can get funding from their governments and
> other bodies to train journalists in IG related issues.

Are there sufficient incentives for these "governments and other
bodies" to fund such centres in the first place, and to make the
centres operate with integrity, i.e. so that they select
representative who are truly representative of the respective 
regions rather than of some influential special interests?

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



..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................
          

---------------------------------
  For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


       
---------------------------------
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/d456fb06/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/d456fb06/attachment.txt>

From anriette at apc.org  Wed Oct  3 07:15:17 2007
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:15:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>

Dear governance caucus members

Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in 
Rio? From this caucus, but also others?

Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a 
list of participants available yet?

Thanks

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


From KovenRonald at aol.com  Wed Oct  3 07:32:32 2007
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 07:32:32 EDT
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
Message-ID: <cf9.1c87786b.3434d7d0@aol.com>

Dear Anriette --

The World Press Freedom Committee plans to be represented in Rio by

Mark Bench, Executive Director
Julien Pain
Yr Humble Servant, Ronald Koven, European Representative

Look forward to seeing you there.

Bests, Rony

PS I've stayed out of the I'net Governance caucus thread on freedom of 
expression because it seems to be raking over so many old coals, but I was tempted 
to remark in response to the person who once again raised the growingly hoary 
example of Radio des Mille Collines to justify limits on press freedom that the 
old Anglo-Saxon legal dictium that "hard cases make bad law" seems 
applicable.

RMC was not an independent news media outlet but the propaganda organ of a 
party to a conflict (even if it masqueraded as an independent private radio and 
had experienced journalists on staff). Designating specific persons or groups 
for extermination is hardly a news media function. RMC was in fact a weapon in 
a civil war, and it would have been justified to bomb it out of existence if 
it could have been found. (Most probably out of fear that just that could   
happen, it moved around and was hard to locate.) Bombing it would have been as 
justified as bombing Dr. Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Ministry would have been 
justified during WWII. RMC had nothing to do with independent news media 
properly so-called.


**************************************
 See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/3243dee8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/3243dee8/attachment.txt>

From cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Wed Oct  3 08:00:03 2007
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:00:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>
	 <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0710030500r6236b0b9w84a00d9f7e0f54a5@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Anriette ,

I am attending for RIO IGF 2007.See on attached document, CAFEC is listed
amon other entities.

Baudouin


2007/10/3, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
>
> Dear governance caucus members
>
> Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
> Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
>
> Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
> list of participants available yet?
>
> Thanks
>
> 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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/4f5b83ae/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF Registration Approved.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 44544 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/4f5b83ae/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: List of Participants.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 211456 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/4f5b83ae/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/4f5b83ae/attachment.txt>

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Wed Oct  3 08:09:32 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 14:09:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0710030500r6236b0b9w84a00d9f7e0f54a5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com> <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com> <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> <ecb172de0710030500r6236b0b9w84a00d9f7e0f54a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071003120932.GA18765@nic.fr>

On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:00:03PM +0200,
 CAFEC <cafec3m at yahoo.fr> wrote 
 a message of 5806 lines which said:

> I am attending for RIO IGF 2007.

It starts to become ridiculous. Will we see one message on the list
for every person/organization which is able to attend the trip?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Wed Oct  3 08:30:05 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:30:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com> <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
Message-ID: <D25E559A-2688-4820-9175-C11D58BCB5C5@privaterra.info>

Anriette:

I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of the  
Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice session on --

ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch

As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy  
reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at  
the event in Athens last year as well.

regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:

> Dear governance caucus members
>
> Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
> Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
>
> Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
> list of participants available yet?
>
> Thanks
>
> Anriette
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From anriette at apc.org  Wed Oct  3 08:31:50 2007
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:31:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <20071003120932.GA18765@nic.fr>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <ecb172de0710030500r6236b0b9w84a00d9f7e0f54a5@mail.gmail.com>, <20071003120932.GA18765@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <4703A7D6.12856.ABA01E7@anriette.apc.org>

Hallo all

I volunteer to compile the list.  People can let me know off 
list if they are going to be in Rio.

Anriette

> > I am attending for RIO IGF 2007.
> 
> It starts to become ridiculous. Will we see one message on the list
> for every person/organization which is able to attend the trip?

------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Oct  3 08:44:43 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 21:44:43 +0900
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <D25E559A-2688-4820-9175-C11D58BCB5C5@privaterra.info>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>,
 <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>,
 <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>
 <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
 <D25E559A-2688-4820-9175-C11D58BCB5C5@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <p0624081dc3293dc09e49@[192.168.0.2]>

at some point a list of participant names will be published on the 
IGF website (I will ask when we can expect the list). The 
registration form says name, delegation (affiliation) title (mr. 
ms.), and category (stakeholder group) will be listed.

<http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php> (see bottom of the page.)

same for Athens and almost all IGF consultations and WSIS (prepcoms 
and summits.)

Adam



At 8:30 AM -0400 10/3/07, Robert Guerra wrote:
>Anriette:
>
>I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of 
>the Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice 
>session on --
>
>ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
>http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch
>
>As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy 
>reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at 
>the event in Athens last year as well.
>
>regards,
>
>Robert
>---
>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
>Managing Director, Privaterra
>Tel +1 416 893 0377
>
>
>
>On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>
>>Dear governance caucus members
>>
>>Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
>>Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
>>
>>Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
>>list of participants available yet?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Anriette
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Wed Oct  3 09:02:19 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:02:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <p0624081dc3293dc09e49@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com> <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> <D25E559A-2688-4820-9175-C11D58BCB5C5@privaterra.info> <p0624081dc3293dc09e49@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <4E734A26-02B8-40D4-85AD-64DBAD3B46E6@privaterra.info>

Adam:

Is there an option on the IGF registration form where people - choose  
in advance - weather they wish to be listed in a pubic list of  
participants ? Having people opt-in would be the preferable privacy  
option..



regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 3-Oct-07, at 8:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote:

> at some point a list of participant names will be published on the  
> IGF website (I will ask when we can expect the list). The  
> registration form says name, delegation (affiliation) title (mr.  
> ms.), and category (stakeholder group) will be listed.
>
> <http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php> (see bottom of the page.)
>
> same for Athens and almost all IGF consultations and WSIS (prepcoms  
> and summits.)
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> At 8:30 AM -0400 10/3/07, Robert Guerra wrote:
>> Anriette:
>>
>> I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of  
>> the Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice  
>> session on --
>>
>> ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
>> http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch
>>
>> As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy  
>> reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at  
>> the event in Athens last year as well.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Robert
>> ---
>> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
>> Managing Director, Privaterra
>> Tel +1 416 893 0377
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>
>>> Dear governance caucus members
>>>
>>> Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
>>> Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
>>>
>>> Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
>>> list of participants available yet?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Anriette
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  3 09:06:26 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 22:06:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <4E734A26-02B8-40D4-85AD-64DBAD3B46E6@privaterra.info>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>,
 <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>,
 <f65fb55e0710030339k3fe84d6ewc4d7b75021d00bbb@mail.gmail.com>
 <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org>
 <D25E559A-2688-4820-9175-C11D58BCB5C5@privaterra.info>
 <p0624081dc3293dc09e49@[192.168.0.2]>
 <4E734A26-02B8-40D4-85AD-64DBAD3B46E6@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <p06240820c32943d90c3f@[192.168.0.2]>

>Adam:
>
>Is there an option on the IGF registration form where people - 
>choose in advance - weather they wish to be listed in a pubic list 
>of participants ? Having people opt-in would be the preferable 
>privacy option..
>


No there isn't.  And I don't believe it's been an option since the 
start of WSIS.  Seems a UN process registration thing.

Again.  I'll ask.

Adam



>
>regards,
>
>Robert
>---
>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
>Managing Director, Privaterra
>Tel +1 416 893 0377
>
>
>
>On 3-Oct-07, at 8:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>at some point a list of participant names will be published on the 
>>IGF website (I will ask when we can expect the list). The 
>>registration form says name, delegation (affiliation) title (mr. 
>>ms.), and category (stakeholder group) will be listed.
>>
>><http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php> (see bottom of the page.)
>>
>>same for Athens and almost all IGF consultations and WSIS (prepcoms 
>>and summits.)
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>At 8:30 AM -0400 10/3/07, Robert Guerra wrote:
>>>Anriette:
>>>
>>>I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of 
>>>the Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice 
>>>session on --
>>>
>>>ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
>>>http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch
>>>
>>>As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy 
>>>reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at 
>>>the event in Athens last year as well.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>
>>>Robert
>>>---
>>>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
>>>Managing Director, Privaterra
>>>Tel +1 416 893 0377
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dear governance caucus members
>>>>
>>>>Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
>>>>Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
>>>>
>>>>Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
>>>>list of participants available yet?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>
>>>>Anriette
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Wed Oct  3 09:39:49 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed,  3 Oct 2007 15:39:49 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [igsd] Summary and Thanks - e-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development
In-Reply-To: <563635.70232.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message from kwasi
	boakye-akyeampong on Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:23:48 +0100 (BST))
References: <563635.70232.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20071003133949.91A6F2202D9@quill.bollow.ch>

Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> With the governments I think there is. All governments have drafted
> National ICT documents. If we can press the right buttons, we can get
> them to support some of these initiatives. Believe most of these
> governments are not tyrants as we are wont to suggest.

I tend to think of governments as organizations consisting of people
who will, due to time and resource constraints, be able to address
only some of the issues which are brought to their attention.

Furthermore it seems realistic to assume that whenever there are no
clear rules about which issues should be addressed, most government
officials will, when making their choices about which issues they will
address, tend to be strongly influenced by considerations about which
choices will be beneficial for their own careers and their political
allies.

Obviously there are strong incentives for governments to draft
"National ICT documents", since if a government doesn't do this, it is
obvious that that government is not doing its job properly.

Whether there are also strong incentives to do the "National ICT
documents" drafting work seriously, so that the resulting documents
are suitable for directing action on the topics which they cover,
is a different question.

I would suggest that whether the "National ICT documents" are
practically useful instruments of policy or not is very likely
something that varies from country to country.

To summarize, I do not think that it is logically possible to draw any
conclusions from the existence of "National ICT documents".

> Some of the bad policies are due to ignorance

I would say that such ignorance is a clear indication of insufficient
incentives for taking appropriate and effective action.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Oct  3 10:16:49 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:16:49 -0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <989867.9214.qm@web50201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <989867.9214.qm@web50201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4703A451.104@rits.org.br>

Regarding doubts like Nnenna's, I would recommend we take a look again 
at the IGF program document describing each of the main themes -- many 
of the more specific issues which may be loosely regarded as part of 
CIRs are treated under the other themes. Of course net neutrality is 
critical, and it is listed under "access". Of course security is 
critical, but it has its specific panel etc etc. If we try to put 
everything in one bucket, we better sit in a large round table and have 
rounds of caipirinhas and talk abouth everything...

I am afraid this thread, though well intentioned of course, is not 
contributing to focusing on the specific issues which motivated the 
protracted and difficult introduction of CIR as a main agenda topic.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Nnenna wrote:
> Lee, all
> 
> The question was this: for me as an Internet User... what is CIR?  Unless you want to tell people what is critical to their internet use, you should listen to them.
> 
> IMHO, the question should have been: what Internet resource allocation issues are critical to users all over the world?
> 
> In which case, we will be discussing issues that concern all users in all places.  If you want to pinpoint certain issues and get particular feedback on them, then go ahead.  Then you will probably know that RIRs, domain names and others may not make the top list.
> 
> Nnenna
> 
> Lee McKnight <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> wrote: Veni, Kwasi,
> 
> With all due respect, and yeah maybe I'm being pedantic, but we are
> talking of definitions after all. You are confounding critical
> resources, and critical Internet resources.
> 
> Noone's arguing that food, water, shelter, and safety aren't absolutely
> critical, for everyone on earth. But that wasn't the question, was it?  
> 
> 
> When one gets to power then we can start debating 'critical information
> infrastructure' as the phrase was popularized some years back; but that
> also wasn't Paul's question.  Though we can all agree its further
> development, worldwide, is an important objective.
> 
> Lee
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> 
>>>> kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk 10/2/2007 6:25 AM >>>
> 
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
>  Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1040 - Release Date: 30/9/2007 21:01

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Oct  3 15:23:58 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:23:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Avri:

I would answer your question as follows:

 

We can either spend our time in Rio debating the _definition_ of CIR, or we can spend that time debating and discussing _the policies_ and the _governance arrangements_ applied to CIR. We cannot do both. There is not time to do both, and if we don’t agree on what CIR is, we cannot have a productive discussion on policies and governance arrangements.  

 

I have no doubt about which type of conversation would be more interesting and productive. We should be discussing the policies and gov arrangements. There are many fascinating issues there, and they are exactly the kind of issues the Forum is supposed to be taking up. The only reason to shift the discussion to definitions is to divert attention from a discussion of those policies and institutions currently involved in CIR.

 

   _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?

 

hi,

 

i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question itself and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is only one answer and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?

 

some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some people think there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben here before).  is only the narrow definition valid?

 

if so, i do not understand it.

 

and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are they supposed to be critical too?

 

a.

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/0516a71a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/0516a71a/attachment.txt>

From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Oct  3 15:35:04 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:35:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <cf9.1c87786b.3434d7d0@aol.com>
References: <cf9.1c87786b.3434d7d0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions whether they believe that the existence of government rules regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others. Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela. 

 

   _____  

From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] 



RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found. 

 

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/c1c52412/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/c1c52412/attachment.txt>

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Oct  3 20:56:51 2007
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
Message-ID: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in
 Venezuela ."

I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.

I agree with the rest of his points though.

David


----- Original Message ----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com
Cc: Embench at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media




 


 

 

 


<!--
 _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
	{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
 _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{}
-->






I agree with Rony. And I would ask
advocates of media restrictions whether they believe that the existence of government
rules regulating the media in Rwanda 
would have prevented the genocide. Who would have promulgated, monitored and
enforced those rules in Rwanda ?
Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is nothing but
an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the idea that the media can
be regulated to enforce civility is self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases,
media regulations simply become another tool for the dominant party to oppress
the others. Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in
 Venezuela . 
 

  
 















From:
KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com] 




 

RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found. 
 

  
 

  
 










No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM

 








      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/0596fc09/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071003/0596fc09/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 00:41:23 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 07:41:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/2/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> McTim:
> You're right, the TA is vague and even sloppy on this question.
>
> As you point out, para 58 speaks as if CIR were something other than names and addresses. That is the worst example.
>
> Para 70 is more coherent. That is the EU's work. It was clear from their "enhanced cooperation" proposal during WSIS that they wanted "policy principles" for the governance of names and addresses. This is documented in their proposal.
>
> And, during the debate over whether to include CIR in the IGF agenda, it was clear that it meant primarily names and addresses.
>
> As for routing tables, that was my stab at recognizing the strong relationship between address allocation and routing, particularly route aggregation, which I'm sure you understand more or less.

So are slots in the "global routing table" a CIR? If so, which
organisation(s) would have policy authority over them?  Are you
suggesting that slots themselves should be somehow
allocated/assigned/leased/sold??

I do understand route aggregation, I just don't understand what the
IGF has to do with 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 karl at cavebear.com  Thu Oct  4 03:58:42 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:58:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "CriticalInternet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com>

McTim wrote:

  I do understand route aggregation, I just don't understand what the
> IGF has to do with it.

IGF can, and perhaps ought to, have a lot to do with it.

In the area of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses there is a tension between some 
rather tough technical issues and some equally tough economic/social issues:

On one hand we have the technical issues of squeezing routing tables 
into routers and disseminating the routing updates faster than the rate 
at which the net topology and connectivity changes (due to failures, 
maintenance, congestion, etc).

On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider 
independent addresses:  Stable addresses are desired because, despite 
assertions to the contrary, few organizations find the task of 
renumbering addresses to be pleasant or foolproof.  And provider 
independent addresses are desired to support multiple provider 
attachments to the net because single attachments, whether due to 
traffic loading, reliability demands, or the increasing imposition by 
providers on traffic flows, are being perceived as increasingly fragile.

The interplay of these issues will only increase with the deployment of 
mobile devices - mobile IP tending to be more consumptive of addresses 
than stationary IP - and with the increasing deployment of packet 
transport quality sensitive applications such as VoIP and IP/TV 
(registered trademark of Cisco).

ICANN has effectively abandoned this field.  Yes, there is an Address 
Supporting Orgnization, but if one measures its life by the amount of 
activity, it lacks any vital signs.

The RIRs, filling the policy vacuum left by ICANN, have done a pretty 
good job of trying to fill the gap.  In many regards the RIRs provide a 
mirror showing us that where ICANN has gone awry the RIRs have done it 
right.

But the RIRs, even though nominally open to the outside, tend to be more 
the focus of provider and router vendor viewpoints than the opinion of 
end users.  Yes, there are users present who articulate their needs, but 
in the main they are not the strongest voices, and they tend to be 
people who tend to have a strong sympathy to the provider concerns.

The IGF has a role in at least twi regards:

   1. Filling the vacuum at the global level that ICANN has created by 
its withdrawal from the field.  (In these matters it is important to 
distinguish ICANN from IANA.  The IANA folks, who should always be 
distinguished from ICANN, are still probably the best instrumentality 
and kernel around which to structure a global IP address policy.)

   2. Assisting the RIRs become more synoptic.  I don't know how that 
ought to be done except that it ought to be an addition to, not a 
replacement for, the current RIR processes.

			--karl--


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 05:12:49 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 12:12:49 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com>

Karl,

On 10/4/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> McTim wrote:
>
>   I do understand route aggregation, I just don't understand what the
> > IGF has to do with it.
>
> IGF can, and perhaps ought to, have a lot to do with it.

exactly what? Your mail doesn't explain I'm afraid.

>
> In the area of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses there is a tension between some
> rather tough technical issues and some equally tough economic/social issues:
>

true dat

> On one hand we have the technical issues of squeezing routing tables
> into routers and disseminating the routing updates faster than the rate
> at which the net topology and connectivity changes (due to failures,
> maintenance, congestion, etc).
>
> On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider
> independent addresses:

I've never heard the term "stable" used, I think your talking about PA
allocations ( the numbering community calls them " PA") for "Provider
Aggregatable".

>  Stable addresses are desired because, despite
> assertions to the contrary, few organizations find the task of
> renumbering addresses to be pleasant or foolproof.

While it's true that renumbering is painful, this is an argument for
PI, because if an org. has a PI block they never need to renumber.

And provider
> independent addresses are desired to support multiple provider
> attachments to the net because single attachments, whether due to
> traffic loading, reliability demands, or the increasing imposition by
> providers on traffic flows, are being perceived as increasingly fragile.
>

While it's true that people want PI for multihoming, it's also true
that an org. can multihome with PA.

> The interplay of these issues will only increase with the deployment of
> mobile devices - mobile IP tending to be more consumptive of addresses
> than stationary IP - and with the increasing deployment of packet
> transport quality sensitive applications such as VoIP and IP/TV
> (registered trademark of Cisco).
>
> ICANN has effectively abandoned this field.  Yes, there is an Address
> Supporting Orgnization, but if one measures its life by the amount of
> activity, it lacks any vital signs.


Perhaps you should read this:

http://www.nro.net/documents/aso-mou.html

and this:

http://www.nro.net/policy/index.html.

While it is true that there are few global policies to coordinate, the
ASO AC is alive and well.  It's the bottom upittyness of numbering
policy that makes the ASO appear dormant to outsiders, they only act
once a global policy has been agreed by regional communities.

>
> The RIRs, filling the policy vacuum left by ICANN, have done a pretty
> good job of trying to fill the gap.  In many regards the RIRs provide a
> mirror showing us that where ICANN has gone awry the RIRs have done it
> right.

ICANN has strengthened numbering policy creation, in concert with the
RIRs (acting as the NRO).  IMO ICANN hasn't gone awry at all here,
they have done the right thing.

>
> But the RIRs, even though nominally open to the outside, tend to be more
> the focus of provider and router vendor viewpoints than the opinion of
> end users.  Yes, there are users present who articulate their needs, but
> in the main they are not the strongest voices, and they tend to be
> people who tend to have a strong sympathy to the provider concerns.
>

If this was the case, we wouldn't have PI addressing at all!
Please read my mail of Oct. 2nd, to wit:

"These folk have the health and growth of the network foremost in mind when
discussing policy, not necessarily the commercial interests of their
employers."

> The IGF has a role in at least twi regards:
>
>    1. Filling the vacuum at the global level that ICANN has created by
> its withdrawal from the field.

see above, ICANN has NOT withdrawn.

(In these matters it is important to
> distinguish ICANN from IANA.  The IANA folks, who should always be
> distinguished from ICANN, are still probably the best instrumentality
> and kernel around which to structure a global IP address policy.)

They are smart folk, I'll give you that, but the reality is they take
their marching
orders from ICANN, who in turn are instructed by the ASO.  IANA folk
do however actively engage in global and Regional policy discussions.

>
>    2. Assisting the RIRs become more synoptic.  I don't know how that
> ought to be done except that it ought to be an addition to, not a
> replacement for, the current RIR processes.

The RIRs themselves have a global viewpoint, IMO the IGF should look
to the "enhanced cooperation" started long before WSIS by the RIRs.  I
don't see how the IGF can help them become more synoptic.  Perhaps you
can be more specific.

-- 
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 karl at cavebear.com  Thu Oct  4 06:17:08 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:17:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>	 <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com>

McTim wrote:

>> On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider
>> independent addresses:
> 
> I've never heard the term "stable" used, I think your talking about PA
> allocations ( the numbering community calls them " PA") for "Provider
> Aggregatable".

I mean "stable" as in "our addresses won't change if we change 
providers", i.e. provider independent.

> While it is true that there are few global policies to coordinate, the
> ASO AC is alive and well.  It's the bottom upittyness of numbering
> policy...

That "bottom" is, as I pointed out, one that that today populated by 
those skilled in the arcane arts of routing and building routing gear. 
The consumers of those addresses tend to be underrepresented.

The top level ICANN policy can be best expressed as "When a RIR asks, 
ICANN causes IANA to grant".  That's not a very satisfying policy in 
that it is effectively an abrogation of responsibility and raises the 
question "Why is ICANN involved in IP address policy at all?"

By-the-way, in the land of ICANN it would certainly be nice if DNS 
policy bubbled up from those who register domain names, but such is not 
the case.

As for specific things that the IGF could undertake with regards to 
addressing: Recognize ICANN's failure to really engage on address 
policies and establish a new body to fill the vacancy.

Also, the IGF could recognize that RIRs ought to be flexible bodies that 
should exist in conformance with the aggregation possibilities of the 
actual connectivity of the net.  My last conversations with Jon Postel 
were on the subject of RIR's that grow, fade, merge, and split in accord 
with the growth and fading of lumps of rich internet connectivity.  Jon 
and I agreed that the bailiwick of each RIR should be defined by 
technical connectivity not political correctness.

And finally, the RIR's tend to operate as if those who participate are 
the only interests.  The IGF, of a body it creates, would be useful to 
establish guiding principles, or perhaps something softer, like 
guidelines, that express the address needs of the bulk of users who have 
trouble being articulate and persuasive in the relatively technical 
discussions inside the RIRs.

To be a bit more concrete - there have been a lot of notes on this list 
lately about some fairly abstract things, such as freedom of expression. 
  Well, that's a hard topic, but at the bottom of it, there is no way to 
be expressive on the net without some means to use a machine with an IP 
address.  Consequently a useful guideline or principle that the IGF 
could adopt is one that drives address policies to favor greater 
availability of addresses, at relatively low prices and gives less 
weight to the "efficient" use of address spaces.

		--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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Oct  4 06:53:50 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 11:53:50 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] Electrify Africa
Message-ID: <788261.52158.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

  Apologies to those who don't find this interesting. I find it interesting because I had a similar experience when I travelled to Sierra Leone this year. Also this issue came up for discussion on the list recently.

...Kwasi   
  Electrify Africa  Posted in Uncategorized | September 24th, 2007 No Comments »
    There’s been a flurry of interest in electrifying Africa, and Abbey Wasswa of Kampala knows why. Even in Africa’s capital cities, such as Kampala (where I met Wasswa this week), there isn’t enough juice to go around. Indeed, electricity outages — and even outlets — are in such short supply that many ordinary Kampalans routinely scramble to charge their mobile phones. In pursuit of satisfying these electricity-challenged Kampalans, Wasswa recently opened a phone-charging station in one of the city’s poor neighborhoods.
  I’ve been harping on the need for expanding power sources in Africa, especially hydro-electric sources, for some time (see the Wall Street Journal’s brief report on my insights from its May 8, 2007 editon). To be sure, the widespread and severe shortages of electricity in many African countries does mean business opportunities such as offering phone-charging as a service. Wassway, for instance, asks for about 30 cents to fully charge a single mobile phone. Because there are 3 million mobile phone users in Uganda, the market for phone-charging is not small. Indeed, Wasswa has plenty of competitors. Still, Wasswa sees an opportunity both to earn a small profit and to provide an essential service to his neighbors. “In the ghetto,” he says, “many people don’t have a place to charge their phones.” His store — a shack, really, on the side of dirt road — is such a place.
  “Don’t you have phone-charging stories in your country?” Wasswa asks me early in our conversation.
  “No, we don’t,” I answer. 


   
  Source: http://www.africaworksgpz.com/


..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................

       
---------------------------------
 For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/4b3043a1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/4b3043a1/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 08:04:54 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 15:04:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com>
	 <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710040504y730facb4md497e2acfe22bf9d@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/4/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> McTim wrote:
>
> >> On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider
> >> independent addresses:
> >
> > I've never heard the term "stable" used, I think your talking about PA
> > allocations ( the numbering community calls them " PA") for "Provider
> > Aggregatable".
>
> I mean "stable" as in "our addresses won't change if we change
> providers", i.e. provider independent.

I see, when you said:

> On the other hand we have the demand for stable addresses and provider
> independent addresses:

I thought you were talking of two different types.
>
> > While it is true that there are few global policies to coordinate, the
> > ASO AC is alive and well.  It's the bottom upittyness of numbering
> > policy...
>
> That "bottom" is, as I pointed out, one that that today populated by
> those skilled in the arcane arts of routing and building routing gear.
> The consumers of those addresses tend to be underrepresented.
>

You can lead a horse to water..... In Uganda however, I have had some
small success in getting folk here more involved.  I'd like to see
more end-users involved in the process, In fact, I can see a possible
role for the IGF in encouraging this.

> The top level ICANN policy can be best expressed as "When a RIR asks,
> ICANN causes IANA to grant".

Not exactly, more like when an RIR asks, IANA gives (according to
these policies):
http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-001-2.pdf
http://www.nro.net/policy/iana-rir-ipv6-allocation-proposal.html

>That's not a very satisfying policy

It is quite satisfying to the thousands of people who helped build it.

> that it is effectively an abrogation of responsibility and raises the
> question "Why is ICANN involved in IP address policy at all?"

Obviously because they have the MoU to manage the IANA activities.

>
> By-the-way, in the land of ICANN it would certainly be nice if DNS
> policy bubbled up from those who register domain names, but such is not
> the case.

true, except for the AL and perhaps the NCUC.

>
> As for specific things that the IGF could undertake with regards to
> addressing: Recognize ICANN's failure to really engage on address
> policies and establish a new body to fill the vacancy.
>

But they haven't failed, numbering policy is the ideal model for the
rest of IG, it's a spectacular success of bottom uppityness compared
to the DNS side.  They engaged the NRO and together, created the
current system described in the link I sent earlier.  If you want to
do away with ICANN involvement, and have the IANA deal directly with
the NRO, it won't make much functional difference to the status quo
AFAICS.

> Also, the IGF could recognize that RIRs ought to be flexible bodies that
> should exist in conformance with the aggregation possibilities of the
> actual connectivity of the net.

but they already ARE flexible (polies change frequently in response to
the changing needs of the net) and The RIRs have 2 main goals, one of
them is aggregation.

My last conversations with Jon Postel
> were on the subject of RIR's that grow, fade, merge, and split in accord
> with the growth and fading of lumps of rich internet connectivity.

And that's exactly the history of the RIRs.

Jon
> and I agreed that the bailiwick of each RIR should be defined by
> technical connectivity not political correctness.

It's all about technical coordination and nowt to do with being PC.
The IGF is the body obsessed with political correctness!

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/index.html

RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all
parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond. The
objective of RIPE is to ensure the administrative and technical
coordination necessary to enable the operation of a pan-European IP
network.

Google up the rest, and you'll get similar statements on the other RIR sites.

>
> And finally, the RIR's tend to operate as if those who participate are
> the only interests.

I've already explained that this is not the case.  Either you (and
others on this list) don't want to hear the truth of the matter, or
you don't believe me.

The IGF, of a body it creates, would be useful to
> establish guiding principles, or perhaps something softer, like
> guidelines, that express the address needs of the bulk of users who have
> trouble being articulate and persuasive in the relatively technical
> discussions inside the RIRs.

but it can't create a body, it doesn't have the mandate, nor does a
another body need to be created. From a CS standpoint, the guidelines
in place are NOT going to get any better than what we have now in
terms of open, participatory, consensus driven policy making.

>
> To be a bit more concrete - there have been a lot of notes on this list
> lately about some fairly abstract things, such as freedom of expression.
>   Well, that's a hard topic, but at the bottom of it, there is no way to
> be expressive on the net without some means to use a machine with an IP
> address.

Well, there is this: http://www.apnic.net/info/faq/ip_unnumb.html#2,
and there is RFC 1918 space, which you don't get from an RIR, neither
do you get Multicast space from an RIR.

Consequently a useful guideline or principle that the IGF
> could adopt is one that drives address policies to favor greater
> availability of addresses, at relatively low prices and gives less
> weight to the "efficient" use of address spaces.

In the IPv6 world, those are all attainable, In the IPv4 world, as
exhaustion of the global pool gets closer, the RIR communities are
asking for greater efficiency, but costs are stable, not rising.

If you want to have all 3, (directly from IANA to end users), this
could easily be done with a web interface.  Of course NO aggregation
would be possible, and we would need a completely new routing
paradigm.

I don't think the IGF is up to that task.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Oct  4 08:36:03 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:36:03 -0300
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br>

Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the 
first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near 
exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media) 
do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for 
centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a 
few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If 
there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.

The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and 
the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the 
contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in 
demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar 
restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all 
radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred 
to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group 
continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones 
who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the 
opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they 
are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do 
what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's 
access to cable TV as well.

We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome 
will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several 
radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the 
other big private networks), and civil society organizations are 
mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these 
public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and 
the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to 
discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly 
speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of 
their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A 
lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet 
critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.

Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style 
(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA 
stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few 
days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever, 
please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is 
perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for 
the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and 
plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through 
Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on 
in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a 
constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media 
corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be 
no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules
> in Venezuela ."
> 
> I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
> for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
> the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it
> would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
> station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
> the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
> 
> I agree with the rest of his points though.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
> Embench at aol.com Sent: Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
> [governance] Rwanda and media
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
> Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal 
> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink 
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,
> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
>  
> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} 
> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
> whether they believe that the existence of government rules
> regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
> would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
> ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is
> nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
> idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
> self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply
> become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
> Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been 
> justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> 
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
>  http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
> 4/10/2007 08:59

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From email at hakik.org  Thu Oct  4 09:24:29 2007
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:24:29 +0600
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
  "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org>

I will support Milton's arguments, and we should be active in 
policies and governance issues. In many countries, though 
understanding (I would not say that it is definition) about benefits 
of the Internet has made it critical, but my understanding is that 
due to lack of policies (in major aspects) and governance (never 
taken of), Internet couldn't reach the majority of the community.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 01:23 AM 10/4/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>Avri:
>I would answer your question as follows:
>
>We can either spend our time in Rio debating the _definition_ of 
>CIR, or we can spend that time debating and discussing _the 
>policies_ and the _governance arrangements_ applied to CIR. We 
>cannot do both. There is not time to do both, and if we don't agree 
>on what CIR is, we cannot have a productive discussion on policies 
>and governance arrangements.
>
>I have no doubt about which type of conversation would be more 
>interesting and productive. We should be discussing the policies and 
>gov arrangements. There are many fascinating issues there, and they 
>are exactly the kind of issues the Forum is supposed to be taking 
>up. The only reason to shift the discussion to definitions is to 
>divert attention from a discussion of those policies and 
>institutions currently involved in CIR.
>
>
>----------
>From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:23 PM
>To: Internet Governance Caucus
>Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a 
>"Critical Internet resource"?
>
>hi,
>
>i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question 
>itself and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is 
>only one answer and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?
>
>some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some 
>people think there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben 
>here before).  is only the narrow definition valid?
>
>if so, i do not understand it.
>
>and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are 
>they supposed to be critical too?
>
>a.
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/7115fadd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/7115fadd/attachment.txt>

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Thu Oct  4 10:25:01 2007
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 16:25:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br>
References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.com>

I would urge that those who get their worldview from the likes of CNN look
deeper before pointing fingers at "third world countries" when clarion calls
of trampled democracy start blaring. People would better serve democracy
(and in this case, media freedom, freedom of information) if they paid more
attention at what the FCC in the US is allowing the networks to get away
with. Because like it or not (barring now a EU with muscle to set its own
course) whatever gets done in the US tends to ripple out across the world.
The problem is that it hapens in small doses, but continuously, never enough
to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate, civil society's stake is
being chiselled away at, and the arbiter is not doing its job.

The real dangers to democracy is whether or not Venezuela renews a TV
licence, but when the government that claims to be the superpower and world
policeman tramples on Geneva conventions and tortues men and women in
Guantanamo, miles away from the government they have for decades called a
tyranny, while in Iraq they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu Graib.

[]s

Rui

*PS lack of time a while back prevented me form finishing a log piece I was
penning together on CNN as nothing but an extension of the US vision of the
world. It no longer has the same agenda as the CNN that we saw reporting
from the Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after Saddam. But there are
people on this list far better informed then me on the issue, so who know
they might want to post something on it. Otherwise, subscibe to the likes of
Kevin Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES,
http://www.benton.org
and Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think Timothy has hust left, but
www.FreePress.org is still there. Alternatively, you might want to amuse
yourself with google looking up things like "CIA interference in Latin
Ameria"/ Brazil/ Venezuela/ you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc
etc.

On 04/10/2007, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br > wrote:
>
> Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the
> first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near
> exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)
> do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for
> centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a
> few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If
> there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.
>
> The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and
> the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the
> contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in
> demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar
> restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all
> radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred
> to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group
> continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones
> who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the
> opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they
> are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do
> what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's
> access to cable TV as well.
>
> We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome
> will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several
> radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the
> other big private networks), and civil society organizations are
> mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these
> public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and
> the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to
> discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly
> speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of
> their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A
> lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet
> critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.
>
> Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style
> (meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA
> stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few
> days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,
> please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is
> perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for
> the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and
> plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through
> Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on
> in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a
> constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media
> corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be
> no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...
>
> []s fraternos
>
> --c.a.
>
> David Goldstein wrote:
> > Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules
> > in Venezuela ."
> >
> > I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
> > for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
> > the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it
> > would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
> > station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
> > the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
> >
> > I agree with the rest of his points though.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; KovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
> > Embench at aol.com Sent: Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
> > [governance] Rwanda and media
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
> > Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> > {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> > {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,
> > span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
> >
> > {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
> > _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
> > whether they believe that the existence of government rules
> > regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
> > would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
> > ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is
> > nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
> > idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
> > self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply
> > become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
> > Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com ]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
> > justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
> >  http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
> > 4/10/2007 08:59
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> Rio       Brasil
> ***************************************************************
> Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
> com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
> Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
> www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
> ***************************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
________________________________________________


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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/c064346d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/c064346d/attachment.txt>

From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Thu Oct  4 11:00:41 2007
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 08:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Electrify Africa
In-Reply-To: <788261.52158.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <642224.30631.qm@web51007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Hi  kwasi
  So electricity- no doubt  is a "critical internet resource" .To some, it  remains a geographical   issue and not a key issue but i beg to differ at least for  my basis.
  Good Job!
  ebenezer

kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
      Apologies to those who don't find this interesting. I find it interesting because I had a similar experience when I travelled to Sierra Leone this year. Also this issue came up for discussion on the list recently.

...Kwasi   
  Electrify Africa  Posted in Uncategorized | September 24th, 2007  -->No Comments »
    There’s been a flurry of interest in electrifying Africa, and Abbey Wasswa of Kampala knows why. Even in Africa’s capital cities, such as Kampala (where I met Wasswa this week), there isn’t enough juice to go around. Indeed, electricity outages — and even outlets — are in such short supply that many ordinary Kampalans routinely scramble to charge their mobile phones. In pursuit of satisfying these electricity-challenged Kampalans, Wasswa recently opened a phone-charging station in one of the city’s poor neighborhoods.
  I’ve been harping on the need for expanding power sources in Africa, especially hydro-electric sources, for some time (see the Wall Street Journal’s brief report on my insights from its May 8, 2007 editon). To be sure, the widespread and severe shortages of electricity in many African countries does mean business opportunities such as offering phone-charging as a service. Wassway, for instance, asks for about 30 cents to fully charge a single mobile phone. Because there are 3 million mobile phone users in Uganda, the market for phone-charging is not small. Indeed, Wasswa has plenty of competitors. Still, Wasswa sees an opportunity both to earn a small profit and to provide an essential service to his neighbors. “In the ghetto,” he says, “many people don’t have a place to charge their phones.” His store — a shack, really, on the side of dirt road — is such a place.
  “Don’t you have phone-charging stories in your country?” Wasswa asks me early in our conversation.
  “No, we don’t,” I answer. 


   
  Source: http://www.africaworksgpz.com/


  ..............................................................................................................................
  “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I?    And if not now, when?” - Rabbi Hillal
  ..............................................................................................................................
    
---------------------------------
  For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month. ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


       
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/cbd70e8d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/cbd70e8d/attachment.txt>

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Thu Oct  4 12:45:47 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:45:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] General overviews and resources on WSIS follow up and implementation process
Message-ID: <200710041645.l94Gj6B5017349@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all,

 

Some weeks ago, it was asked on the Plenary list to bring some
clarifications on the structures and articulations between the various
post-WSIS institutional processes. Find below and attached some elements of
answers and clarification:

 

-          Power-point presentation on the WSIS implementation and follow up
process: this document is used by Mr. Charles Geiger (Special Advisor to the
UN CSTD and Former WSIS Executive Director) to present the post WSIS
architecture within the UN system (see attached);

 

-          An updated version of the post WSIS chart, together with an
explanatory one-pager, prepared by CONGO (see attached; also available on
line on the CONGO website:
http://www.ngocongo.org/files/chart_on_post_wsis.pdf).

 

-          I also suggest the reading of the chapter on "WSIS in Review",
from the Global Information Society Watch 2007 Report, which provides
relevant clarification on the matter
(http://www.globaliswatch.org/download).

 

I hope this can help! Feel free to indicate other resources on this issue.

 

All the best,

 

Ph

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/3a23ebfb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS Implementation and follow-up 28.8..ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 165888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/3a23ebfb/attachment.ppt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Chart on post WSIS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 43137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/3a23ebfb/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/3a23ebfb/attachment.txt>

From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Thu Oct  4 22:04:11 2007
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 19:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
Message-ID: <348887.125.qm@web54109.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Well, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Chavez isn't using tyranny. I've been having discussions with a Venezuelan bloke here in Sydney who was vehemently opposed to Chavez when we first discussed him. But the more he reads etc the more unsure he becomes, and the more. In our last email he wrote, "I'm confronted with the paradox, of the more I know the more I realise that I don't know... It was easy to be completely anti Chavez..."

There is also plenty of evidence to suggest he is righting wrongs from previous governments where deals have been done to favour the establishment. And this has caused outrage against from the establishment.

There is much more to Chavez than his outspoken words against the US, including education policies ensuring people (at least some) who would have never received an education under previous governments are now receiving one.

David
----- Original Message ----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com>; Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br>
Sent: Friday, 5 October, 2007 11:22:10 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Rwanda and media




 


 

 

 

 

 


<!--
 _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle19
	{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
 _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{}
-->






No time now to get into the details of
 Venezuela , but my opposition to
 US coercion is
consistent over time, I do not need to be lectured about it. I do hope that
dialogue about freedom of expression does not fall into the trap of justifying
tyranny on the basis of who the tyranny is used against. That’s what the
 US does (we must intervene to stop
communism/terrorism/etc) and that’s what Hugop does (I must have absolute
power because I’m the savior against the
 US ). False dichotomy. Thought these
kinds of debates died with the Cold War but I guess not. 
 

  
 












From: Rui Correia
[mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007
10:25 AM

To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ;
Carlos Afonso

Subject: Re: [governance]
 Rwanda and
media
 




  
 

I would urge that those
who get their worldview from the likes of CNN look deeper before pointing
fingers at "third world countries" when clarion calls of trampled
democracy start blaring. People would better serve democracy (and in this case,
media freedom, freedom of information) if they paid more attention at what the
FCC in the US 
is allowing the networks to get away with. Because like it or not (barring now
a EU with muscle to set its own course) whatever gets done in the
 US tends to
ripple out across the world. The problem is that it hapens in small doses, but
continuously, never enough to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate,
civil society's stake is being chiselled away at, and the arbiter is not doing
its job.



The real dangers to democracy is whether or not Venezuela renews a TV licence,
but when the government that claims to be the superpower and world policeman
tramples on Geneva conventions and tortues men and women in Guantanamo, miles
away from the government they have for decades called a tyranny, while in Iraq
they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu Graib.



[]s



Rui



*PS lack of time a while back prevented me form finishing a log piece I was
penning together on CNN as nothing but an extension of the
 US vision of
the world. It no longer has the same agenda as the CNN that we saw reporting
from the Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after Saddam. But there are
people on this list far better informed then me on the issue, so who know they
might want to post something on it. Otherwise, subscibe to the likes of Kevin
Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES, http://www.benton.org and
Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think Timothy has hust left, but www.FreePress.org is still there.
Alternatively, you might want to amuse yourself with google looking up things
like "CIA interference in Latin Ameria"/ Brazil /
 Venezuela /
you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc etc. 
 



On 04/10/2007, Carlos
Afonso <
ca at rits.org.br > wrote:
 

Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the


first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near

exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)

do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for

centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a 

few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin
 America . If

there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.



The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and

the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the 

contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in

demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar

restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all

radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred 

to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group

continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones

who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the 

opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they

are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do

what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's 

access to cable TV as well.



We are here right now in a similar process in
 Brazil , but the outcome

will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several

radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the 

other big private networks), and civil society organizations are

mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these

public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and

the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to 

discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly

speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of

their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A 

lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet

critical resources we will be discussing in Rio .



Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style

(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the
 USA 

stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few

days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,

please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is 

perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for

the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and

plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through

Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on 

in Ecuador ,
with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a

constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media

corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be 

no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...



[]s fraternos



--c.a.



David Goldstein wrote:

> Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez
is using media licensing rules 

> in Venezuela 
."

>

> I find this a bit rich. The media in
 Venezuela has oppressed the poor

> for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent

> the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it 

> would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV

> station it would be better. But then,
 Venezuela has been a tool of

> the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.

>

> I agree with the rest of his points though. 

>

> David

>

>

> ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L
 Mueller <mueller at syr.edu
>

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
; KovenRonald at aol.com
Cc:

> Embench at aol.com Sent:
Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:

> [governance] Rwanda 
and media 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*

> Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal

> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times

> New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink

> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, 

> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p

>

> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times

> New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} 

> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->

>

>

>

>

>

>

> I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions

> whether they believe that the existence of government rules 

> regulating the media in Rwanda 
would have prevented the genocide. Who

> would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in
 Rwanda

> ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is 

> nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the

> idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is

> self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply 

> become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.

> Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in
 Venezuela .

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> From: KovenRonald at aol.com
[mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com
]

>

>

>

>

>

>

> RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been

> justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.

>

>

> 

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> No virus found in this outgoing message.

>

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

>

> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:

> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. 

>  http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html

>

>

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

>

>

> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.

>  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release
Date:

> 4/10/2007 08:59



--



Carlos A. Afonso 

Rio       Brasil

***************************************************************

Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital

com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o

Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: 

www.sacix.org.br  
www.rits.org.br  
www.coletivodigital.org.br

*************************************************************** 



____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

     governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to: 

     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org



For all list information and functions, see: 

     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
 










-- 

________________________________________________





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 
 

No virus
found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007
11:10 AM
 










No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM

 








      Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/cffb57a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/cffb57a8/attachment.txt>

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Oct  4 21:22:10 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 21:22:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.com>
References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br> <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5870D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

No time now to get into the details of Venezuela, but my opposition to US coercion is consistent over time, I do not need to be lectured about it. I do hope that dialogue about freedom of expression does not fall into the trap of justifying tyranny on the basis of who the tyranny is used against. That's what the US does (we must intervene to stop communism/terrorism/etc) and that's what Hugop does (I must have absolute power because I'm the savior against the US). False dichotomy. Thought these kinds of debates died with the Cold War but I guess not. 

 

   _____  

From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:25 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Subject: Re: [governance] Rwanda and media

 

I would urge that those who get their worldview from the likes of CNN look deeper before pointing fingers at "third world countries" when clarion calls of trampled democracy start blaring. People would better serve democracy (and in this case, media freedom, freedom of information) if they paid more attention at what the FCC in the US is allowing the networks to get away with. Because like it or not (barring now a EU with muscle to set its own course) whatever gets done in the US tends to ripple out across the world. The problem is that it hapens in small doses, but continuously, never enough to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate, civil society's stake is being chiselled away at, and the arbiter is not doing its job.

The real dangers to democracy is whether or not Venezuela renews a TV licence, but when the government that claims to be the superpower and world policeman tramples on Geneva conventions and tortues men and women in Guantanamo, miles away from the government they have for decades called a tyranny, while in Iraq they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu Graib.

[]s

Rui

*PS lack of time a while back prevented me form finishing a log piece I was penning together on CNN as nothing but an extension of the US vision of the world. It no longer has the same agenda as the CNN that we saw reporting from the Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after Saddam. But there are people on this list far better informed then me on the issue, so who know they might want to post something on it. Otherwise, subscibe to the likes of Kevin Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES, HYPERLINK "http://www.benton.org/" \nhttp://www.benton.org and Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think Timothy has hust left, but HYPERLINK "http://www.FreePress.org"www.FreePress.org is still there. Alternatively, you might want to amuse yourself with google looking up things like "CIA interference in Latin Ameria"/ Brazil/ Venezuela/ you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc etc. 

On 04/10/2007, Carlos Afonso <HYPERLINK "mailto:ca at rits.org.br" \n ca at rits.org.br > wrote:

Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the 
first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near
exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)
do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for
centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a 
few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If
there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.

The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and
the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the 
contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in
demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar
restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all
radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred 
to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group
continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones
who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the 
opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they
are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do
what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's 
access to cable TV as well.

We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome
will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several
radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the 
other big private networks), and civil society organizations are
mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these
public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and
the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to 
discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly
speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of
their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A 
lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet
critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.

Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style
(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA 
stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few
days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,
please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is 
perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for
the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and
plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through
Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on 
in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a
constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media
corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be 
no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules 
> in Venezuela ."
>
> I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
> for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
> the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it 
> would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
> station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
> the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
>
> I agree with the rest of his points though. 
>
> David
>
>
> ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L Mueller <HYPERLINK "mailto:mueller at syr.edu" \nmueller at syr.edu >
> To: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance at lists.cpsr.org ; HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
> HYPERLINK "mailto:Embench at aol.com" \nEmbench at aol.com Sent: Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
> [governance] Rwanda and media 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
> Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, 
> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
>
> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} 
> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
> whether they believe that the existence of government rules 
> regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
> would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
> ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is 
> nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
> idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
> self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply 
> become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
> Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com ]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
> justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. 
>  HYPERLINK "http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html" \nhttp://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
>
>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
> 4/10/2007 08:59

--

Carlos A. Afonso 
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: 
HYPERLINK "http://www.sacix.org.br" \nwww.sacix.org.br   HYPERLINK "http://www.rits.org.br" \nwww.rits.org.br   HYPERLINK "http://www.coletivodigital.org.br" \nwww.coletivodigital.org.br
*************************************************************** 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
     HYPERLINK "mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see: 
     HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" \nhttp://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 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date: 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/adff614c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071004/adff614c/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Fri Oct  5 01:08:05 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:38:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D7EDABE6-F10F-4F5C-8606-D8A6063A5E7B@psg.com>

Hi,

I agree that arguing over the discussion will waste time in Rio.   
But  not everyone accepts the same definition as you do and perhaps  
they would find that discussing cIr as defined by you would waste  
their time on future problems as opposed to the problems they face  
today.

On 4 okt 2007, at 00.53, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The only reason to shift the discussion to definitions is to divert  
> attention from a discussion of those policies and institutions  
> currently involved in CIR.

hmm, the only reason for disagreement?  do you really believe all the  
people on this list are trying to divert attention.  i don't exclude  
the possibility that this may motivate some, but i do not think that  
can be said of everyone who disagrees with you.

a.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/de8e5aa2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/de8e5aa2/attachment.txt>

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri Oct  5 03:53:57 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 09:53:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710040504y730facb4md497e2acfe22bf9d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com> <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com> <f65fb55e0710040504y730facb4md497e2acfe22bf9d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071005075357.GA8523@nic.fr>

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0300,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 163 lines which said:

> > RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all
> > parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and
> > beyond. [...]
> 
> Google up the rest, and you'll get similar statements on the other
> RIR sites.

Ii is only a statement! Since when, in politics, do we take
self-serving statements at face value? I suggest that, to know what
the RIRs do, we do not read only texts from the RIRs... (Same thing
for ICANN, the US government, the UN, etc.)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 04:15:30 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:15:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: For you as an Internet user what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <20071005075357.GA8523@nic.fr>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com>
	 <f65fb55e0710040212x3b6cc2c8y10a78265022c74e4@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com>
	 <f65fb55e0710040504y730facb4md497e2acfe22bf9d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20071005075357.GA8523@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710050115q46c9ea66mb0d11658aeffae96@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0300,
>  McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 163 lines which said:
>
> > > RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all
> > > parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and
> > > beyond. [...]
> >
> > Google up the rest, and you'll get similar statements on the other
> > RIR sites.
>
> Ii is only a statement! Since when, in politics, do we take
> self-serving statements at face value?

As a member of the RIPE community, do you feel the statement is inaccurate?

-- 
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  Fri Oct  5 04:38:32 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:38:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <D7EDABE6-F10F-4F5C-8606-D8A6063A5E7B@psg.com>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <D7EDABE6-F10F-4F5C-8606-D8A6063A5E7B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240807c32b81e675ed@[192.168.0.2]>



>Hi,
>
>I agree that arguing over the discussion will 
>waste time in Rio.  But  not everyone accepts 
>the same definition as you do and perhaps they 
>would find that discussing cIr as defined by you 
>would waste their time on future problems as 
>opposed to the problems they face today.


not everyone accepts the same definition, but the 
draft of Rio programme does give one to work 
from.  I believe first proposed by China in the 
last open consultation, and I think fair to say 
supported by most members of the advisory group.

The programme says about CIR:

Critical Internet Resources:

Starting point for the discussion is the 
definition contained in the WGIG report (Para 13 
a):

"Issues relating to infrastructure and the 
management of critical Internet resources, 
including administration of the domain name 
system and Internet protocol addresses (IP 
addresses), administration of the root server 
system, technical standards, peering and 
interconnection, telecommunications 
infrastructure, including innovative and 
convergent technologies, as well as 
multilingualization."

The session will use a baseline approach, taking 
into account WSIS principles. The purpose of the 
discussion is to bring out information and 
opinion.

  - - - -

Not clear to me why China proposed this 
particular definition (not the one I would have 
picked).  But good luck to them.

I do not know exactly what is meant by a "baseline approach".

I think we must be clear we're preparing for an 
IGF meeting not GAID (Internet Governance not 
IT4D), and a lot of what's been said in this 
thread about power and access makes me think of 
IT4D.

Internet governance, from WGIG report again:

"the development and application by governments, 
the private sector and civil society, in their 
respective roles, of shared principles, norms, 
rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes 
that shape the evolution and use of the Internet".

Adam

>On 4 okt 2007, at 00.53, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>The only reason to shift the discussion to 
>>definitions is to divert attention from a 
>>discussion of those policies and institutions 
>>currently involved in CIR.
>>
>
>hmm, the only reason for disagreement?  do you 
>really believe all the people on this list are 
>trying to divert attention.  i don't exclude 
>the possibility that this may motivate some, but 
>i do not think that can be said of everyone who 
>disagrees with you.
>
>a.
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Oct  5 04:41:11 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:41:11 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Meeting Point/Village Square
Message-ID: <p0624080cc32ba8c17eae@[192.168.0.2]>

new from <http://www.intgovforum.org/>

"Meeting Point/Village Square: Participants wishing to reserve a 
space for their institution should contact the Secretariat. Small 
stalls will be made available for interested institutions. Depending 
on the demand, interested institutions will be asked to either share 
stalls or take turns. The stalls will be approximately 1 meter wide 
and 60 cm deep with a backdrop for presenting posters, as illustrated 
in this picture 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/images/Proforma_QUIOSQUE-IGF-ONU.jpg>. 
(Please note that the final version may differ from the picture 
shown.)[updated 4 October 2007]

(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 lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu  Fri Oct  5 04:59:18 2007
From: lluis.miret at ubuntu.upc.edu (Lluis Miret)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 10:59:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS follow up	and implementation process
In-Reply-To: <200710041645.l94Gj6B5017349@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200710041645.l94Gj6B5017349@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <009f01c8072e$03cf0c90$0b6d25b0$@miret@ubuntu.upc.edu>

Great work Philippe!! Thanks!

 

De: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] En
nombre de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam
Enviado el: jueves, 04 de octubre de 2007 18:46
Para: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
gov at wsis-gov.org
CC: 'CONGO - Philippe Dam'; 'Renate Bloem'
Asunto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS follow up
and implementation process

 

Dear all,

 

Some weeks ago, it was asked on the Plenary list to bring some
clarifications on the structures and articulations between the various
post-WSIS institutional processes. Find below and attached some elements of
answers and clarification:

 

-       Power-point presentation on the WSIS implementation and follow up
process: this document is used by Mr. Charles Geiger (Special Advisor to the
UN CSTD and Former WSIS Executive Director) to present the post WSIS
architecture within the UN system (see attached);

 

-       An updated version of the post WSIS chart, together with an
explanatory one-pager, prepared by CONGO (see attached; also available on
line on the CONGO website:
http://www.ngocongo.org/files/chart_on_post_wsis.pdf).

 

-       I also suggest the reading of the chapter on "WSIS in Review", from
the Global Information Society Watch 2007 Report, which provides relevant
clarification on the matter (http://www.globaliswatch.org/download).

 

I hope this can help! Feel free to indicate other resources on this issue.

 

All the best,

 

Ph

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/cbaac2d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/cbaac2d1/attachment.txt>

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Fri Oct  5 05:45:53 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:45:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical  Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c32b81e675ed@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <D7EDABE6-F10F-4F5C-8606-D8A6063A5E7B@psg.com> <p06240807c32b81e675ed@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <20071005094553.GA24308@nic.fr>

On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:38:32PM +0900,
 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote 
 a message of 105 lines which said:

> The programme says about CIR: "[...] technical standards, peering
> and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, including
> innovative and convergent technologies, as well as
> multilingualization."

This is extremely broad! With such a definition, one wonder what could
*not* be a CIR...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  5 05:58:42 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:58:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why IPv6 has trouble to be financed
Message-ID: <20071005095842.GA26944@nic.fr>

As someone who believes that the IGF should spend less time on domain
names and more time on actually critical Internet resources, such as
IP addresses, let me forward a very interesting analysis of a
skeptical person about IPv6 financing:

----- Forwarded message from "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com> -----

Subject: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition
From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker at verisign.com>
To: Artur Hecker <hecker at wave-storm.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:19:59 -0700

[Y2K-related text deleted]

So how does this all relate to IPv4/6? It does not. The problem with the IPv6 transition is that the cost and benefit are completely out of phase. The cost falls on those who have IPv4 addresses, the benefits acrue only to those who do not. If you have an IPv4 address the fact that others do not is not going to make a huge difference to the benefit you get from the network. 

Metcalf's law is overstated, the value of a network to an individual user is at best proportional to its size. In practice the Blockbuster effect means that there are diminishing returns. A network of four billion plus one users is worth more or less the same to me as a user as a network of four billion. The fact that there could be one more user is not something that would greatly encourage me to upgrade my kit. At best the value of the network to existing users is going to be the log of the number of users. 

Looking back at my personal use of networks I can certainly agree that the number of users increases the value. I have seen the Web grow from 100 users to a billion. The value has not increased at anything like the same rate. The Web is certainly more useful today than in 2000 or 1995 or 1992 but the increase in value has been linear, not exponential. The Web does not help me to find ten million times more useful information today than it did in 1992.

So the idea that we can rely on the Internet haves to invest money to benefit the Internet have-nots on the scale necessary is unfortunately misguided. 


I do think that we can make the IPv6 transition work. I do not think that we can just expect it to happen and for everything to turn out just right. Or that merely convincing people that there is going to be a problem will result in a solution.

We have to think like marketting people.


[...]

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

----- End forwarded message -----
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk  Fri Oct  5 06:38:44 2007
From: j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk (Jonathan Cave)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:38:44 +0100
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br>
 <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200710051038.l95AckwK005116@mail-relay-2.csv.warwick.ac.uk>

Wow! What a nice long thread on this important 
topic. Personally, I regret that it has veered 
into the Chavez debate, but I find the general 
issue of quid custodiet ipsos custodiae (who 
watches the watchers?) is a fascinating one.

Any government bears a (non-exclusive) obligation 
to protect fundamental human rights. This 
reasonably includes restraining activities that 
foment violations of those rights. This restraint 
should be stronger, the greater the risk that 
such activities will actually lead to murder, 
etc. The risk from 'hate speech' depends on the 
content and the reach or the medium through which it is disseminated.

Of course, governments differ in their 
willingness to shoulder this obligation and in 
the power of their own people to hold them to 
account. Their success or failure in meeting this 
obligation also affects the wider world. 
Governments lead by example (for good or ill). 
Moreover, the flight of the persecuted produces 
immediate spillovers ranging from resource 
scarcity to social polarisation and transferred 
political instability. For a comparatively 
trivial (though not to those affected) instance, 
see the current UK legal and policy debate about 
the Home Office decision that it is safe to 
return failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe.

So, who can help governments to bear this 
responsibility on behalf of their people and all 
of us? That question seems to me to raise a neat 
paradox, because the media (generally) are a key 
'governor of governments.'  Like (e-) democracy, 
there is a strong argument that some aspects of 
media policy should not be within the gift of 
government. Governments must/should constrain the 
media in some respects, and the media must 
(should) constrain governments in others - but 
even the areas where one or the other should prevail are unclear and shifting.

RMC was an interesting example - but tightly 
focused on the dangers of violent populism as 
opposed to the easy caricature of principled 
press opposition to a repressive regime vs. self 
(commercially)-interested tides of porn and spam. 
Where the media affect societal discourse, a further issue occurs to me.

I'd be fascinated to read what members of this 
group think (if anything) of the question of 
whether suitable balance and moderation are meant 
to be collective or individual attributes of 'responsible' media policy.

Most broadcast media are subject to content 
controls as to accuracy, accessibility by those 
with different views, etc. Internet content is 
(generally) free of such restraints. In the EU, 
the nascent Audiovisual Media Services Directive 
would extend broadcast-type content regulation to 
'linear' (basically, non-interactive) content 
made available over the Internet.

The practical issue is whether a regulatory 
distinction based on user interaction with 
content delivery makes any sense, or simply 
encourages the migration of content (and possibly 
the fragmentation of audiences) into whatever 
unregulated zone the rules create.

The issue of principle is whether:
    * everything should be neutral and balanced 
in itself (with clear separation of 'editorial' and other tendentious content)
    * all channels should be open to (or required 
to include) the whole range of societal opinion on key issues, or
    * the very variety of channels available is 
an argument for dropping any balance or neutrality regulation.
This isn't just theory: in the last US 
Presidential election, the chairman of Fox News 
defended his organisation against charges of bias 
by saying (in effect) that the left-wing 
'blogosphere' would put the other side of the 
story. This ignores the fact that those addressed 
by either channel typically ignore the other and 
thus that this 'diversity' reinforces rather than 
moderates societal 'discourse.'

What I'm asking is which of the three options is 
'best' and second, who or what should have the choice?

Thanks for any thoughts - and thanks for a 
continually fascinating ongoing discourse. Sorry for the academic language...

Cheers,

J.



At 15:25 04/10/2007, Rui Correia wrote:
>I would urge that those who get their worldview 
>from the likes of CNN look deeper before 
>pointing fingers at "third world countries" when 
>clarion calls of trampled democracy start 
>blaring. People would better serve democracy 
>(and in this case, media freedom, freedom of 
>information) if they paid more attention at what 
>the FCC in the US is allowing the networks to 
>get away with. Because like it or not (barring 
>now a EU with muscle to set its own course) 
>whatever gets done in the US tends to ripple out 
>across the world. The problem is that it hapens 
>in small doses, but continuously, never enough 
>to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate, 
>civil society's stake is being chiselled away 
>at, and the arbiter is not doing its job.
>
>The real dangers to democracy is whether or not 
>Venezuela renews a TV licence, but when the 
>government that claims to be the superpower and 
>world policeman tramples on Geneva conventions 
>and tortues men and women in Guantanamo, miles 
>away from the government they have for decades 
>called a tyranny, while in Iraq they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu Graib.
>
>[]s
>
>Rui
>
>*PS lack of time a while back prevented me form 
>finishing a log piece I was penning together on 
>CNN as nothing but an extension of the US vision 
>of the world. It no longer has the same agenda 
>as the CNN that we saw reporting from the 
>Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after 
>Saddam. But there are people on this list far 
>better informed then me on the issue, so who 
>know they might want to post something on it. 
>Otherwise, subscibe to the likes of Kevin 
>Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED 
>HEADLINES, 
><http://www.benton.org/>http://www.benton.org 
>and Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think 
>Timothy has hust left, but 
><http://www.FreePress.org>www.FreePress.org is 
>still there. Alternatively, you might want to 
>amuse yourself with google looking up things 
>like "CIA interference in Latin Ameria"/ Brazil/ 
>Venezuela/ you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc etc.
>
>On 04/10/2007, Carlos Afonso <<mailto:ca at rits.org.br> ca at rits.org.br > wrote:
>Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the
>first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near
>exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)
>do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for
>centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a
>few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If
>there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.
>
>The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and
>the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the
>contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in
>demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar
>restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all
>radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred
>to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group
>continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones
>who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the
>opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they
>are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do
>what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's
>access to cable TV as well.
>
>We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome
>will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several
>radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the
>other big private networks), and civil society organizations are
>mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these
>public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and
>the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to
>discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly
>speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of
>their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A
>lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet
>critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.
>
>Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style
>(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA
>stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few
>days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,
>please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is
>perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for
>the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and
>plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through
>Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on
>in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a
>constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media
>corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be
>no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...
>
>[]s fraternos
>
>--c.a.
>
>David Goldstein wrote:
> > Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules
> > in Venezuela ."
> >
> > I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
> > for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
> > the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it
> > would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
> > station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
> > the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
> >
> > I agree with the rest of his points though.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L 
> Mueller <<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>mueller at syr.edu >
> > To: 
> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> ; <mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com>KovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
> > <mailto:Embench at aol.com>Embench at aol.com Sent: 
> Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
> > [governance] Rwanda and media
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
> > Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> > {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> > {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,
> > span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
> >
> > {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
> > _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
> > whether they believe that the existence of government rules
> > regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
> > would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
> > ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is
> > nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
> > idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
> > self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply
> > become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
> > Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: 
> <mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com>KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com ]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
> > justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
> > 
> <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
> > 4/10/2007 08:59
>
>--
>
>Carlos A. Afonso
>Rio       Brasil
>***************************************************************
>Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
>com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
>Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
><http://www.sacix.org.br>www.sacix.org.br 
>www.rits.org.br   <http://www.coletivodigital.org.br>www.coletivodigital.org.br
>***************************************************************
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> 
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> 
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>________________________________________________
>
>
>Rui Correia
>Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>2 Cutten St
>Horison
>Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
>South Africa
>Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
>Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/3477f64c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/3477f64c/attachment.txt>

From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Oct  5 08:41:34 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:41:34 -0300
Subject: [governance] Rwanda and media
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5870D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br> <ec8caada0710040725p14f0c612q670a51e16b43aa27@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5870D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <470630FE.8040900@rits.org.br>

Milton, we are not lecturing you -- this is a conference online, so we 
are addressing all members (who might have read your msg). But I agree 
this is off-topic, at least at this moment we are in the last-minute 
discussions regarding the IGF.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> No time now to get into the details of Venezuela, but my opposition to US coercion is consistent over time, I do not need to be lectured about it. I do hope that dialogue about freedom of expression does not fall into the trap of justifying tyranny on the basis of who the tyranny is used against. That's what the US does (we must intervene to stop communism/terrorism/etc) and that's what Hugop does (I must have absolute power because I'm the savior against the US). False dichotomy. Thought these kinds of debates died with the Cold War but I guess not. 
> 
>  
> 
>    _____  
> 
> From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:25 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> Subject: Re: [governance] Rwanda and media
> 
>  
> 
> I would urge that those who get their worldview from the likes of CNN look deeper before pointing fingers at "third world countries" when clarion calls of trampled democracy start blaring. People would better serve democracy (and in this case, media freedom, freedom of information) if they paid more attention at what the FCC in the US is allowing the networks to get away with. Because like it or not (barring now a EU with muscle to set its own course) whatever gets done in the US tends to ripple out across the world. The problem is that it hapens in small doses, but continuously, never enough to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate, civil society's stake is being chiselled away at, and the arbiter is not doing its job.
> 
> The real dangers to democracy is whether or not Venezuela renews a TV licence, but when the government that claims to be the superpower and world policeman tramples on Geneva conventions and tortues men and women in Guantanamo, miles away from the government they have for decades called a tyranny, while in Iraq they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu Graib.
> 
> []s
> 
> Rui
> 
> *PS lack of time a while back prevented me form finishing a log piece I was penning together on CNN as nothing but an extension of the US vision of the world. It no longer has the same agenda as the CNN that we saw reporting from the Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after Saddam. But there are people on this list far better informed then me on the issue, so who know they might want to post something on it. Otherwise, subscibe to the likes of Kevin Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED HEADLINES, HYPERLINK "http://www.benton.org/" \nhttp://www.benton.org and Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think Timothy has hust left, but HYPERLINK "http://www.FreePress.org"www.FreePress.org is still there. Alternatively, you might want to amuse yourself with google looking up things like "CIA interference in Latin Ameria"/ Brazil/ Venezuela/ you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc etc. 
> 
> On 04/10/2007, Carlos Afonso <HYPERLINK "mailto:ca at rits.org.br" \n ca at rits.org.br > wrote:
> 
> Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the 
> first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near
> exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)
> do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for
> centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a 
> few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If
> there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.
> 
> The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and
> the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the 
> contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in
> demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar
> restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all
> radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred 
> to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group
> continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones
> who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the 
> opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they
> are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do
> what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's 
> access to cable TV as well.
> 
> We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome
> will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several
> radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the 
> other big private networks), and civil society organizations are
> mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these
> public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and
> the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to 
> discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly
> speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of
> their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A 
> lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet
> critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.
> 
> Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style
> (meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA 
> stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few
> days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,
> please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is 
> perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for
> the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and
> plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through
> Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on 
> in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a
> constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media
> corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be 
> no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...
> 
> []s fraternos
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> David Goldstein wrote:
>> Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules 
>> in Venezuela ."
>>
>> I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
>> for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
>> the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it 
>> would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
>> station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
>> the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
>>
>> I agree with the rest of his points though. 
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L Mueller <HYPERLINK "mailto:mueller at syr.edu" \nmueller at syr.edu >
>> To: HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance at lists.cpsr.org ; HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
>> HYPERLINK "mailto:Embench at aol.com" \nEmbench at aol.com Sent: Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
>> [governance] Rwanda and media 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
>> Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
>> {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
>> New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
>> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, 
>> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
>>
>> {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
>> New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} 
>> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
>> whether they believe that the existence of government rules 
>> regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
>> would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
>> ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is 
>> nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
>> idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
>> self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply 
>> become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
>> Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:HYPERLINK "mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com" \nKovenRonald at aol.com ]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
>> justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>
>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
>> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. 
>>  HYPERLINK "http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html" \nhttp://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>  Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
>> 4/10/2007 08:59
> 
> --
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso 
> Rio       Brasil
> ***************************************************************
> Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
> com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
> Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: 
> HYPERLINK "http://www.sacix.org.br" \nwww.sacix.org.br   HYPERLINK "http://www.rits.org.br" \nwww.rits.org.br   HYPERLINK "http://www.coletivodigital.org.br" \nwww.coletivodigital.org.br
> *************************************************************** 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      HYPERLINK "mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to: 
>      HYPERLINK "mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org" \ngovernance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see: 
>      HYPERLINK "http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" \nhttp://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.1/1050 - Release Date: 4/10/2007 17:03

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From plzak at arin.net  Fri Oct  5 11:05:45 2007
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:05:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net>

They why don't those who claim that the current policy fora are either non effective or non inclusive participate in them and encourage others to do so? How many of these persons are subscribed to the open policy discussion lists? Why don't they advocate from a capacity building perspective work toward enlarging the CS participation in the existing governance structures?

Ray

From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?

I will support Milton's arguments, and we should be active in policies and governance issues. In many countries, though understanding (I would not say that it is definition) about benefits of the Internet has made it critical, but my understanding is that due to lack of policies (in major aspects) and governance (never taken of), Internet couldn't reach the majority of the community.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 01:23 AM 10/4/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:


Avri:
I would answer your question as follows:

We can either spend our time in Rio debating the _definition_ of CIR, or we can spend that time debating and discussing _the policies_ and the _governance arrangements_ applied to CIR. We cannot do both. There is not time to do both, and if we don't agree on what CIR is, we cannot have a productive discussion on policies and governance arrangements.

I have no doubt about which type of conversation would be more interesting and productive. We should be discussing the policies and gov arrangements. There are many fascinating issues there, and they are exactly the kind of issues the Forum is supposed to be taking up. The only reason to shift the discussion to definitions is to divert attention from a discussion of those policies and institutions currently involved in CIR.

________________________________
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?

hi,

i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question itself and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is only one answer and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?

some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some people think there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben here before).  is only the narrow definition valid?

if so, i do not understand it.

and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are they supposed to be critical too?

a.


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/a8f0ab1c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/a8f0ab1c/attachment.txt>

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Fri Oct  5 10:08:25 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:08:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] Update on CSTD (CSTD Intersession panel in Kuala Lumpur, 28-30/11/2007)
Message-ID: <200710051407.l95E7iii012666@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

CSTD Intersession Panel

This is to inform you that the dates on the up coming CSTD intersession
panel have been set up for 28-30 November 2007, in Kuala Lumpur.

 

Regarding issues related to the WSIS follow up process, the inter-sessional
panel will address the first theme of the multi-year programme of work, as
agreed in last May: "Development-oriented policies for socio-economic
inclusive information society, including access, infrastructure and an
enabling environment".

 

Find the preliminary information at
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068
<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Meeting.asp?intItemID=2068&lang=1&m=13906&y
ear=2007&month=11> &lang=1&m=13906&year=2007&month=11. 

More information, including registration modalities and the panel's
programme, will be circulated soon.

 

A regularly up-dated calendar of post-WSIS related meetings in the UN system
is still available at http://www.csbureau.info/posttunis.htm. 

 

WSIS accreditation and ECOSOC Consultative Status 

The CSTD Secretariat prepared two information notes - one for WSIS
accredited civil society entities and one for private sector entities - on
the status of non State Stakeholders in the work of the CSTD. Nothing really
new from the information we previously circulated in May, but it might help
clarifying some points. 

 

Remember indeed that WSIS accredited CS entities could participate in the
2007 and 2008 sessions of the CSTD. For the 2009 session on wards, NGOs will
have to be in consultative status with ECOSOC. Note that the ECOSOC
requested the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs (which review NGO applications for
consultative status) to consider applications from WSIS accredited CS
entities "as expeditiously as possible". 

 

See those notes at the following links:

-          Note for Civil Society: http://stdev.unctad.org/docs/ngo.pdf.

-          Note for business sector entities:
http://stdev.unctad.org/docs/business.pdf. 

 

All the best, 

 

Philippe

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/16205283/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/16205283/attachment.txt>

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Oct  5 11:19:11 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 11:19:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 

>So are slots in the "global routing table" a CIR? 

I would say yes.

>If so, which
>organisation(s) would have policy authority over them? 

Currently, Tier one ISPs make those decisions in an autonomous,
self-regulatory manner. Maybe that is the best policy, maybe it isn't.
We need to understand the process, the consequences and the alternatives
better. 

> Are you
>suggesting that slots themselves should be somehow
>allocated/assigned/leased/sold??

If that would improve the efficiency of routing and/or the stability of
the system, it is something that should be explored. No one, including
me, has a well-defined policy on this that they are peddling at the
moment. We are in the exploratory phases of analysis, identification of
problems, etc. We do hear about the externalities caused by adding
routing entries costlessly, and about the constant threat of an
oversized routing table, and about the need for provider independent
address blocks. Those sound like the kind of problems that might lead to
global policy initiatives at some point (or not).


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 12:19:30 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:19:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

I agree with Ray on this, but I would like to know *why* people aren't
involving themselves in the open fora specifically constructed to gather the
sort of input that they claiming is lacking.

 

There is a surprising lack of candour about the realities of the situation
considering the passion that exists out there.

 

Is it because:

 

*	People don't know the fora exist?
*	Feel the fora are not effective?
*	Feel the fora are controlled?
*	Because there is no clear thread from input to outcome?
*	Or is it because people simply don't like the fact that their views
do not make it through the process?
*	Because to interact is simply too time-consuming?
*	Because the methods of interaction are intimidating or difficult?

 

 

On the one side we have people wishing to design entirely new methods
without involving themselves in the ones that already exist. The Internet,
it seems, continues to give people a taste for revolution. 

 

On the other side, those working within the existing structures seem content
to dismiss those that sit outside, and so may be missing out on valuable
insight and input. 

 

 

The disconnect is there and, as ever, manifests itself in anger and
aggression - as this mailing list makes clear all too often.

 

I for one am interested in finding solutions - or, at least, having civil
conversations about why people aren't happy, rather than only reading and
responding to expressions of unhappiness. 

 

 

 

Kieren

 

  _____  

From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 11:06 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Hakikur Rahman; Milton L Mueller; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

 

They why don't those who claim that the current policy fora are either non
effective or non inclusive participate in them and encourage others to do
so? How many of these persons are subscribed to the open policy discussion
lists? Why don't they advocate from a capacity building perspective work
toward enlarging the CS participation in the existing governance structures?

 

Ray

 

From: Hakikur Rahman [mailto:email at hakik.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

 

I will support Milton's arguments, and we should be active in policies and
governance issues. In many countries, though understanding (I would not say
that it is definition) about benefits of the Internet has made it critical,
but my understanding is that due to lack of policies (in major aspects) and
governance (never taken of), Internet couldn't reach the majority of the
community.

Best regards,
Hakik

At 01:23 AM 10/4/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote:



Avri:
I would answer your question as follows:
 
We can either spend our time in Rio debating the _definition_ of CIR, or we
can spend that time debating and discussing _the policies_ and the
_governance arrangements_ applied to CIR. We cannot do both. There is not
time to do both, and if we don't agree on what CIR is, we cannot have a
productive discussion on policies and governance arrangements.  
 
I have no doubt about which type of conversation would be more interesting
and productive. We should be discussing the policies and gov arrangements.
There are many fascinating issues there, and they are exactly the kind of
issues the Forum is supposed to be taking up. The only reason to shift the
discussion to definitions is to divert attention from a discussion of those
policies and institutions currently involved in CIR.
 

  _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 12:23 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?
 
hi,
 
i do not understand why trying to define cIr is not a fine question itself
and needs to defined as another question.   unless there is only one answer
and not other answer is allowed.  but why would that be?
 
some people think there is a narrow definition for cIr and some people think
there is a broad definition of cIr (i think we have ben here before).  is
only the narrow definition valid?
 
if so, i do not understand it.
 
and if they aren't supposed to be critical to users, then who are they
supposed to be critical too?
 
a.
 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/d94016f8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/d94016f8/attachment.txt>

From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 13:31:02 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:31:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview on
this issue of new gTLDs for a week.

Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.

I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I just
don't think either will happen.

I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.

It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that even
those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
together. 

Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement and
it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement. 

In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
clearly:

------------------

I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :

Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I

Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.

Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.

Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of God.

Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
Reformed Baptist Church of God.

Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed Baptist
Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
1915, was the answer.

Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off. 

------------------

I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
community.

But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.


I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that a
large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
the Internet itself.

When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
no fault of their own.

This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so many
customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it has
more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they needed
to be.

When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars -
and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may damage
confidence in the actual domain name system itself.

What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of domains
registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?

What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
did they know they can trust a domain or website again? 


Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company that
runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from a
massive increase in spam.

What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD? 

What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled combination
of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
quite probably porn.

What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the website
they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000 emails
they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000 has
just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on it.

This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from happening.
It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable failure
systems have to be put in place. 

But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging. 


Just my two cents/pence.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Dear List
 
the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global (boderless)
nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation and
to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
communication rights and freedoms). 
 
If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
"public order", "public health " and "moral". 
 
In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see the
right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and reputations
or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values. 
 
In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda has
to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other nations
have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is always
a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
conflicting values. 
 
The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the late
1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon papers
where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the right
to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the first
amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued that
in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US citizens
limitations are justified.   
 
The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide what
is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation of
human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no consensus
among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
thing you can reach is to agree to disagree. 
 
I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral independent
court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as part
of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such a
third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the scene
and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of innovative
ideas (and trust). 
 
With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD. The
two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts with
one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it really
doesn´t matter. 
 
There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal? Why
this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
this means nothing. 
 
If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt for
names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which obliges
all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What will
happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for additional
domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their content
(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
how to bypass this official blockage. 
 
What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
 
Wolfgang    
 
>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society 
 
 

________________________________


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Fri Oct  5 13:35:02 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:35:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <D31F4B8C-145A-47D3-9925-947973D16474@privaterra.info>

Kieren:

I'm quite surprised by you response.

First - define people... An selected elite who actually know about IG  
issues, speak english and have access to the internet - or the "whole  
world" ?

Pro-active engagement, consultation and - dialogue - with those  
voices missing from the discussion is much needed.  While this space  
can provide a valuable venue for discussion  - it can not be seen as  
the sole authoritative space in IG. Different cultures have different  
modes of expression. While some may feel quite comfortable posting on  
a public list   - it is likely not the case for the majority.

What spaces do exist for dialogue, discussion and debate. hmm.. IGF  
perhaps?

regards

Robert



On 5-Oct-07, at 12:19 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:

> I agree with Ray on this, but I would like to know *why* people  
> aren’t involving themselves in the open fora specifically  
> constructed to gather the sort of input that they claiming is lacking.
>
>

>
>
> There is a surprising lack of candour about the realities of the  
> situation considering the passion that exists out there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/55343870/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/55343870/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 13:57:32 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 20:57:32 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>
> >So are slots in the "global routing table" a CIR?
>
> I would say yes.

Sorry, Milton, I was just messin with ya, the "global routing table"
is merely a phrase used in routing discussions. There really is no
such animal.  No one CAN have policy authority over something that
exists in peoples heads as an abstract concept.

>
> >If so, which
> >organisation(s) would have policy authority over them?
>
> Currently, Tier one ISPs make those decisions in an autonomous,
> self-regulatory manner.

See above, whoever told you that one was pulling your leg m8.

Network operators that have a block of IP space either pay their
upstream (not neccesarily a Tier1) to route the space for them or they
do it themselves via an ASN.

These folk determine their own routing policies (who they peer with,
what routes they "listen to", etc).   I for one wouldn't like a
"topdown" system to replace this "bottomup" one.

As an aside, these routes are registered in an Internet Routing
Registry (sometimes an RIR, sometimes not). IRRs however do NOT
determine who gets a "routing slot".

 > Maybe that is the best policy, maybe it isn't.
> We need to understand the process, the consequences and the alternatives
> better.
>
> > Are you
> >suggesting that slots themselves should be somehow
> >allocated/assigned/leased/sold??
>
> If that would improve the efficiency of routing and/or the stability of
> the system, it is something that should be explored.

I can see a dystopia where efficiency and stability are increased by
hyper-aggregation.
Your IPv6 geo idea would fit neatly in this fictional world.  At this
point however, it would be closing the barn door after the horse has
already escaped, due to the pressure of folk requiring IPv6 PI, (thus
creating an IPv6 "swamp").

No one, including
> me, has a well-defined policy on this that they are peddling at the
> moment.

Thank $Deity for small favors, routing is hard, sBGP will be even
harder.  Adding some Layer 9 fluff on the routing system might be the
straw that breaks the camel's back.

-- 
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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 14:59:15 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 14:59:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <D31F4B8C-145A-47D3-9925-947973D16474@privaterra.info>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <D31F4B8C-145A-47D3-9925-947973D16474@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <00a701c80781$d3f4f1c0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

Actually, I've become increasingly of the view that one of the problems wrt
issues that the Internet is throwing up is that a small group of people that
have followed Internet issues since the early days feel the need to be
involved with every aspect.

 

Perfectly logical from a human perspective, but impossible in the wider
scheme of things because of the sheer amount of material and change these
days. 

 

The problem that I'm hoping to try to find ways of solving is to make it
easy for people that care about a very particular aspect of what the
Internet is doing can find an easy way to get involved.

 

There is clearly a problem somewhere because you keep hearing the same
expressions of frustration about how and where decisions are made. 

 

Who are "the people"? They are the people that care about a particular issue
- be it government ministers, CEOs, academics or the (wo)man in the street.

 

 

 

Kieren

 

 

  _____  

From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 1:35 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical
Internet resource"?

 

Kieren:

 

I'm quite surprised by you response.

 

First - define people... An selected elite who actually know about IG
issues, speak english and have access to the internet - or the "whole world"
?

 

Pro-active engagement, consultation and - dialogue - with those voices
missing from the discussion is much needed.  While this space can provide a
valuable venue for discussion  - it can not be seen as the sole
authoritative space in IG. Different cultures have different modes of
expression. While some may feel quite comfortable posting on a public list
- it is likely not the case for the majority. 

 

What spaces do exist for dialogue, discussion and debate. hmm.. IGF perhaps?

 

regards

 

Robert

 

 

 

On 5-Oct-07, at 12:19 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:





I agree with Ray on this, but I would like to know *why* people aren't
involving themselves in the open fora specifically constructed to gather the
sort of input that they claiming is lacking.









 

There is a surprising lack of candour about the realities of the situation
considering the passion that exists out there.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/73416e14/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/73416e14/attachment.txt>

From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Fri Oct  5 15:00:57 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 15:00:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a
	"Critical Internet resource"?
Message-ID: <s70651c3.052@gwia203.syr.edu>

Here's a suggestion:

Let's apply the same logic to all the other sessions, and say,  let's
talk about what the title of the session means to Internet users.
Actually not a bad idea to keep us grounded.

I understand as the first time on the IGF agenda 'Critical Internet
Resources' will take some defining, just seems off if those on the panel
because they have something to do with critical internet resources now 
essentially say their selection was a mistake because the topic is
really  Internet user needs.

In which case we need more sociologists, anthropologists, and market
researchers and should substitute them for the people who represent
things formerly known as critical Internet resources ; ) Just a
suggestion.
 
Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> avri at psg.com 10/5/2007 1:08 AM >>>
Hi,

I agree that arguing over the discussion will waste time in Rio.   
But  not everyone accepts the same definition as you do and perhaps  
they would find that discussing cIr as defined by you would waste  
their time on future problems as opposed to the problems they face  
today.

On 4 okt 2007, at 00.53, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> The only reason to shift the discussion to definitions is to divert 

> attention from a discussion of those policies and institutions  
> currently involved in CIR.

hmm, the only reason for disagreement?  do you really believe all the 

people on this list are trying to divert attention.  i don't exclude  
the possibility that this may motivate some, but i do not think that  
can be said of everyone who disagrees with you.

a.




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dan at musicunbound.com  Fri Oct  5 15:36:05 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 12:36:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]>

Kieren,

It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
Seth Finkelstein made some similar arguments on the ICANN public forum, I
believe.

If we didn't expand the gTLD space, then the control issues would not be
prominent because there would be nothing to control (given that the current
crop of gTLDs is already a fait accompli).  That's one way to avoid the
censorship issue: remove the option for any new "expression" in this realm
(of gTLD strings) whatsoever.

But ICANN seems to have found consensus that it would be good to expand the
gTLD space.  Perhaps because it creates more exponential revenue for ICANN,
I don't know, just one idea.


So, now we have to consider *how* to expand it, given that the expansion
seems assured as a matter of ICANN policy.

When you appeal to registries failing, etc., it seems that would fall under
the consideration of operational criteria, which nobody is objecting to as
a valid consideration for evaluating a new registry application.  Technical
and operational criteria are perfectly reasonable for ICANN to consider
when approving gTLD applications.  No question, no argument.

However your example with Registerfly was for a 2LD registrar, not a gTLD
registry.  I am not aware of the failure of any gTLD registries.  In any
event, this case brought about a move to review the registrar accreditation
processes at ICANN, and well this should happen.  But such accreditation is
still not expected to involve consideration of expression-related criteria
for granting 2LDs, for example.  (This is one of the common arguments for
doing it for TLDs: you can still have "anythingyouwant.com" even if
".anythingyouwant" is rejected.)

"Sloppy security" is also an operational matter.  Perhaps security
standards should be established for registries.  Again, not an
expression-related matter.

Domain tasting and porn are also not at issue in the currently proposed
gTLD policy -- unless the proposed gTLD string *itself* constitutes "porn",
and who is going to make *that* decision???  Do you really want *ICANN* to
draw that line?  I shudder at the thought.

In any case, nothing you have written here seems to conflict with, say, the
NCUC position, which is to allow genuine technical and operational
considerations into gTLD application evaluation but to keep
expression-related criteria out of the process at ICANN per se (and to
close procedural loopholes that would allow censorship without even having
to explain why), and let existing political jurisdictions prosecute
violations within their jurisdictions.

If an authoritarian nation wants to create a chilling effect with regard to
expressive characteristics of gTLD registries within their borders, or to
even block some gTLDs from being found within their national network, at
least let that decision stay within their borders and not be imposed on the
rest of the world.

Dan



At 1:31 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview on
>this issue of new gTLDs for a week.
>
>Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
>and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.
>
>I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
>different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I just
>don't think either will happen.
>
>I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
>reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
>provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.
>
>It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that even
>those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
>together.
>
>Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement and
>it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement.
>
>In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
>clearly:
>
>------------------
>
>I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
>jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :
>
>Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I
>
>Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.
>
>Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.
>
>Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of God.
>
>Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
>Reformed Baptist Church of God.
>
>Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed Baptist
>Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
>1915, was the answer.
>
>Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off.
>
>------------------
>
>I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
>community.
>
>But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.
>
>
>I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that a
>large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
>the Internet itself.
>
>When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
>customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
>name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
>money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
>vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
>no fault of their own.
>
>This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
>significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so many
>customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it has
>more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they needed
>to be.
>
>When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
>registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
>registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars -
>and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may damage
>confidence in the actual domain name system itself.
>
>What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
>lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of domains
>registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?
>
>What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
>their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
>there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
>did they know they can trust a domain or website again?
>
>
>Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
>greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company that
>runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from a
>massive increase in spam.
>
>What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD?
>
>What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled combination
>of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
>quite probably porn.
>
>What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the website
>they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000 emails
>they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000 has
>just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
>everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on it.
>
>This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from happening.
>It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable failure
>systems have to be put in place.
>
>But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
>insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging.
>
>
>Just my two cents/pence.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>
>Dear List
>
>the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global (boderless)
>nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
>organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
>Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation and
>to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
>communication rights and freedoms).
>
>If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
>hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
>Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
>reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
>potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
>"public order", "public health " and "moral".
>
>In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
>national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see the
>right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
>universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
>limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and reputations
>or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values.
>
>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
>particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
>killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
>the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda has
>to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other nations
>have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
>that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is always
>a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
>constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
>independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
>conflicting values.
>
>The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
>of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the late
>1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon papers
>where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
>secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
>security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the right
>to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
>numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
>justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
>that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
>and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the first
>amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued that
>in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US citizens
>limitations are justified.
>
>The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
>independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
>The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide what
>is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
>stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation of
>human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no consensus
>among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
>thing you can reach is to agree to disagree.
>
>I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
>dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
>nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral independent
>court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as part
>of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
>can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such a
>third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the scene
>and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
>mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of innovative
>ideas (and trust).
>
>With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD. The
>two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
>selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts with
>one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
>that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it really
>doesn´t matter.
>
>There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
>they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
>the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
>will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
>do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal? Why
>this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
>that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
>Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
>and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
>this means nothing.
>
>If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
>places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt for
>names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
>else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which obliges
>all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What will
>happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
>TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for additional
>domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their content
>(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
>how to bypass this official blockage.
>
>What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
>more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
>
>Wolfgang
>
>>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 15:58:25 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 15:58:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

> It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.

Hi Dan

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

I have been going on about gTLD expansion for as long as I can remember. 

I think for example the argument that "domains don't matter because we have
Google" is fundamentally flawed: Google is just a company, and a company
that uses the DNS extensively in building its rankings, plus one which makes
nearly all its money from companies that have well-defined domain names.

I think gTLD expansion is probably the *only* solution to the intellectual
property issues that have disrupted so many discussions over the years (if
everyone goes to .movie for films, where is the damage to your product if
someone has your film title under a .org?)

I think gTLD expansion is the undeniable future of the Internet. I think it
is the next revolutionary step in applications - not facebook.com but
.facebook.

My concern stems from the fact that so many brains are being banged against
one another rather than working together to predict and pre-empt future
issues.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:36 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Kieren,

It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
Seth Finkelstein made some similar arguments on the ICANN public forum, I
believe.

If we didn't expand the gTLD space, then the control issues would not be
prominent because there would be nothing to control (given that the current
crop of gTLDs is already a fait accompli).  That's one way to avoid the
censorship issue: remove the option for any new "expression" in this realm
(of gTLD strings) whatsoever.

But ICANN seems to have found consensus that it would be good to expand the
gTLD space.  Perhaps because it creates more exponential revenue for ICANN,
I don't know, just one idea.


So, now we have to consider *how* to expand it, given that the expansion
seems assured as a matter of ICANN policy.

When you appeal to registries failing, etc., it seems that would fall under
the consideration of operational criteria, which nobody is objecting to as
a valid consideration for evaluating a new registry application.  Technical
and operational criteria are perfectly reasonable for ICANN to consider
when approving gTLD applications.  No question, no argument.

However your example with Registerfly was for a 2LD registrar, not a gTLD
registry.  I am not aware of the failure of any gTLD registries.  In any
event, this case brought about a move to review the registrar accreditation
processes at ICANN, and well this should happen.  But such accreditation is
still not expected to involve consideration of expression-related criteria
for granting 2LDs, for example.  (This is one of the common arguments for
doing it for TLDs: you can still have "anythingyouwant.com" even if
".anythingyouwant" is rejected.)

"Sloppy security" is also an operational matter.  Perhaps security
standards should be established for registries.  Again, not an
expression-related matter.

Domain tasting and porn are also not at issue in the currently proposed
gTLD policy -- unless the proposed gTLD string *itself* constitutes "porn",
and who is going to make *that* decision???  Do you really want *ICANN* to
draw that line?  I shudder at the thought.

In any case, nothing you have written here seems to conflict with, say, the
NCUC position, which is to allow genuine technical and operational
considerations into gTLD application evaluation but to keep
expression-related criteria out of the process at ICANN per se (and to
close procedural loopholes that would allow censorship without even having
to explain why), and let existing political jurisdictions prosecute
violations within their jurisdictions.

If an authoritarian nation wants to create a chilling effect with regard to
expressive characteristics of gTLD registries within their borders, or to
even block some gTLDs from being found within their national network, at
least let that decision stay within their borders and not be imposed on the
rest of the world.

Dan



At 1:31 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview on
>this issue of new gTLDs for a week.
>
>Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
>and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.
>
>I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
>different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I
just
>don't think either will happen.
>
>I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
>reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
>provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.
>
>It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that even
>those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
>together.
>
>Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement and
>it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement.
>
>In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
>clearly:
>
>------------------
>
>I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
>jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :
>
>Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I
>
>Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.
>
>Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.
>
>Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of
God.
>
>Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
>Reformed Baptist Church of God.
>
>Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed Baptist
>Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
>1915, was the answer.
>
>Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off.
>
>------------------
>
>I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
>community.
>
>But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.
>
>
>I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that a
>large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
>the Internet itself.
>
>When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
>customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
>name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
>money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
>vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
>no fault of their own.
>
>This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
>significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so many
>customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it
has
>more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they
needed
>to be.
>
>When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
>registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
>registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars
-
>and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may damage
>confidence in the actual domain name system itself.
>
>What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
>lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of
domains
>registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?
>
>What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
>their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
>there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
>did they know they can trust a domain or website again?
>
>
>Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
>greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company
that
>runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from a
>massive increase in spam.
>
>What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD?
>
>What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled
combination
>of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
>quite probably porn.
>
>What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the website
>they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000 emails
>they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000
has
>just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
>everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on
it.
>
>This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from
happening.
>It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable
failure
>systems have to be put in place.
>
>But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
>insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging.
>
>
>Just my two cents/pence.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>
>Dear List
>
>the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global (boderless)
>nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
>organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
>Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation and
>to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
>communication rights and freedoms).
>
>If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
>hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
>Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
>reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
>potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
>"public order", "public health " and "moral".
>
>In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
>national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see
the
>right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
>universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
>limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and
reputations
>or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values.
>
>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
>particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
>killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
>the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda
has
>to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other
nations
>have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
>that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is always
>a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
>constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
>independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
>conflicting values.
>
>The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
>of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the late
>1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon
papers
>where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
>secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
>security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the right
>to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
>numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
>justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
>that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
>and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the
first
>amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued that
>in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US
citizens
>limitations are justified.
>
>The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
>independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
>The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide what
>is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
>stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation
of
>human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no
consensus
>among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
>thing you can reach is to agree to disagree.
>
>I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
>dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
>nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral
independent
>court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as
part
>of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
>can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such a
>third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the
scene
>and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
>mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of innovative
>ideas (and trust).
>
>With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD. The
>two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
>selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts
with
>one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
>that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it really
>doesn´t matter.
>
>There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
>they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
>the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
>will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
>do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal?
Why
>this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
>that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
>Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
>and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
>this means nothing.
>
>If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
>places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt
for
>names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
>else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which obliges
>all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What will
>happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
>TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for additional
>domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their content
>(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
>how to bypass this official blockage.
>
>What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
>more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
>
>Wolfgang
>
>>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Fri Oct  5 16:10:47 2007
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:10:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <4980785B-A79A-4EBC-9FEB-94A5F4B7E572@internet.law.pro>

On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
 > It means controls need to be put in place and it means that  
suitable failure
 > systems have to be put in place.

It's also important to separate the parade of horribles in your  
message into technical failures and policy failures.

Technical failures are relatively more easy to solve. Keep in mind  
that a registry's main obligation is to reliably serve a text file  
(aka, the TLD zone file) to anyone who asks for it. If a registry can  
no longer do this, the task of serving the text file can be given to  
someone else, and ICANN simply updates the root servers to point to  
the new TLD servers. Yes, you also have whois, registrant and billing  
data (which may live at either or both the registry and registrar),  
but at least in an emergency, you could keep traffic flowing by  
porting the zone file to a new server.

(The idea of hacking .money to change the zone file to serve  
fraudulent date is interesting, and ICANN certainly require that  
registries have security standards to guard against it, but hackers  
do this already through cache poisoning at the ISP level.)

Policy failures are much harder to solve, but they also exist largely  
in the eyes of the beholder. For example, I was very much disturbed  
that .PRO opted to depart from its original purpose and allow open  
registrations for second-level .PRO names through registrar proxy  
services (the registrar uses the professional credentials of its in  
house lawyers and accountants to stand as the credentials of non- 
professional registrants otherwise ineligible to register). Others  
thought exploiting the proxy registration loophole was a good thing.

Trying to solve for possible policy failures as a prerequisite to  
launching new TLDs is one of the reasons we're still talking about  
the launch ten years after the White Paper.

--
Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext")
smime.p7s is a digital signature
http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-------------------------------------




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Fri Oct  5 16:36:44 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:36:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <4980785B-A79A-4EBC-9FEB-94A5F4B7E572@internet.law.pro>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <4980785B-A79A-4EBC-9FEB-94A5F4B7E572@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <00ca01c8078f$71e0e120$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

I'm with you Brett but sometimes policy and technical are two sides of the
same coin.

Re: registry failure.

The RegisterFly collapse was not the first time - in fact it was far from
the first time - that a registrar had failed. But the system in place had
always worked previously - namely that the company would sell its data to
another registrar.

The problem was that the system relied on the registrar behaving in a
certain way. When it didn't, suddenly there was no method by which it could
be made to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner, and there was no
way for anyone to step in and take its records off its hands.

If a registry goes haywire - who can fix it without the explicit help and
consent of the company that has gone haywire? And yet can you imagine
VeriSign agreeing to let *anyone* ever be allowed to take .com off its
hands?

(I actually think you could draw up a series of events that VeriSign could
agree to that would provide the authority to someone - for the simple reason
that they know that the situation would never happen.) 


The other big problem that you have raised is the concept of the expectation
of registry renewal.

The .pro registry is a case in point - it got the contract under one plan
but then changed that plan. The UPU is currently asking for a radical
alteration in its initial plans for .post - the plans under which it was
granted the registry.

What if someone gets a registry under a certain plan and then sells up when
a different company sees a different way of running it to make money. What
if we end up with registry contracts being sold on the open market in the
same way you can purchase an ICANN-accredited registrar company?

Now, I am sure that somewhere someone is having and has had these
conversations but I've not heard them. And if I haven't heard them, they're
not being had widely enough.




Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 4:11 PM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
 > It means controls need to be put in place and it means that  
suitable failure
 > systems have to be put in place.

It's also important to separate the parade of horribles in your  
message into technical failures and policy failures.

Technical failures are relatively more easy to solve. Keep in mind  
that a registry's main obligation is to reliably serve a text file  
(aka, the TLD zone file) to anyone who asks for it. If a registry can  
no longer do this, the task of serving the text file can be given to  
someone else, and ICANN simply updates the root servers to point to  
the new TLD servers. Yes, you also have whois, registrant and billing  
data (which may live at either or both the registry and registrar),  
but at least in an emergency, you could keep traffic flowing by  
porting the zone file to a new server.

(The idea of hacking .money to change the zone file to serve  
fraudulent date is interesting, and ICANN certainly require that  
registries have security standards to guard against it, but hackers  
do this already through cache poisoning at the ISP level.)

Policy failures are much harder to solve, but they also exist largely  
in the eyes of the beholder. For example, I was very much disturbed  
that .PRO opted to depart from its original purpose and allow open  
registrations for second-level .PRO names through registrar proxy  
services (the registrar uses the professional credentials of its in  
house lawyers and accountants to stand as the credentials of non- 
professional registrants otherwise ineligible to register). Others  
thought exploiting the proxy registration loophole was a good thing.

Trying to solve for possible policy failures as a prerequisite to  
launching new TLDs is one of the reasons we're still talking about  
the launch ten years after the White Paper.

--
Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext")
smime.p7s is a digital signature
http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html
-------------------------------------




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  5 16:43:44 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:43:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]>
 <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <p06230903c32c4b6a9d19@[10.0.1.2]>

Okay, well, then, what about the rest of the points I made below under the
assumption that the gTLD space is going to be expanded?  I don't see you
disagreeing with the rest of my discussion, which is the important part.

I'm not sure what "future issues" you wish to "pre-empt" but it may be that
some important future issues (such as balancing various competing human
rights that will remain systematically in conflict forever) simply cannot
be pre-empted without doing massive structural injustice to legitimate
political authority and processes.

Sometimes a community (including a broad world community) *needs* to work
through difficult issues in a way that is politically broadly accountable,
rather than trying to avoid confronting (excuse me, "pre-empt") the issues
in the back rooms.

The problem is that the "issues" can *not* really be pre-empted.  They
would simply be decided by fiat in a way that allows the most powerful back
room participants to have their way without inconvenient obstruction by
weaker stakeholders with contrasting interests.

What is pre-empted is a process for ensuring independently accountable
justice.  The issues themselves are eternal and can never be pre-empted per
se.

Dan



At 3:58 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>
>Hi Dan
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>I have been going on about gTLD expansion for as long as I can remember.
>
>I think for example the argument that "domains don't matter because we have
>Google" is fundamentally flawed: Google is just a company, and a company
>that uses the DNS extensively in building its rankings, plus one which makes
>nearly all its money from companies that have well-defined domain names.
>
>I think gTLD expansion is probably the *only* solution to the intellectual
>property issues that have disrupted so many discussions over the years (if
>everyone goes to .movie for films, where is the damage to your product if
>someone has your film title under a .org?)
>
>I think gTLD expansion is the undeniable future of the Internet. I think it
>is the next revolutionary step in applications - not facebook.com but
>.facebook.
>
>My concern stems from the fact that so many brains are being banged against
>one another rather than working together to predict and pre-empt future
>issues.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:36 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>
>Kieren,
>
>It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>Seth Finkelstein made some similar arguments on the ICANN public forum, I
>believe.
>
>If we didn't expand the gTLD space, then the control issues would not be
>prominent because there would be nothing to control (given that the current
>crop of gTLDs is already a fait accompli).  That's one way to avoid the
>censorship issue: remove the option for any new "expression" in this realm
>(of gTLD strings) whatsoever.
>
>But ICANN seems to have found consensus that it would be good to expand the
>gTLD space.  Perhaps because it creates more exponential revenue for ICANN,
>I don't know, just one idea.
>
>
>So, now we have to consider *how* to expand it, given that the expansion
>seems assured as a matter of ICANN policy.
>
>When you appeal to registries failing, etc., it seems that would fall under
>the consideration of operational criteria, which nobody is objecting to as
>a valid consideration for evaluating a new registry application.  Technical
>and operational criteria are perfectly reasonable for ICANN to consider
>when approving gTLD applications.  No question, no argument.
>
>However your example with Registerfly was for a 2LD registrar, not a gTLD
>registry.  I am not aware of the failure of any gTLD registries.  In any
>event, this case brought about a move to review the registrar accreditation
>processes at ICANN, and well this should happen.  But such accreditation is
>still not expected to involve consideration of expression-related criteria
>for granting 2LDs, for example.  (This is one of the common arguments for
>doing it for TLDs: you can still have "anythingyouwant.com" even if
>".anythingyouwant" is rejected.)
>
>"Sloppy security" is also an operational matter.  Perhaps security
>standards should be established for registries.  Again, not an
>expression-related matter.
>
>Domain tasting and porn are also not at issue in the currently proposed
>gTLD policy -- unless the proposed gTLD string *itself* constitutes "porn",
>and who is going to make *that* decision???  Do you really want *ICANN* to
>draw that line?  I shudder at the thought.
>
>In any case, nothing you have written here seems to conflict with, say, the
>NCUC position, which is to allow genuine technical and operational
>considerations into gTLD application evaluation but to keep
>expression-related criteria out of the process at ICANN per se (and to
>close procedural loopholes that would allow censorship without even having
>to explain why), and let existing political jurisdictions prosecute
>violations within their jurisdictions.
>
>If an authoritarian nation wants to create a chilling effect with regard to
>expressive characteristics of gTLD registries within their borders, or to
>even block some gTLDs from being found within their national network, at
>least let that decision stay within their borders and not be imposed on the
>rest of the world.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 1:31 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>>I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview on
>>this issue of new gTLDs for a week.
>>
>>Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
>>and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.
>>
>>I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
>>different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I
>just
>>don't think either will happen.
>>
>>I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
>>reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
>>provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.
>>
>>It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that even
>>those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
>>together.
>>
>>Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement and
>>it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement.
>>
>>In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
>>clearly:
>>
>>------------------
>>
>>I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
>>jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :
>>
>>Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I
>>
>>Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.
>>
>>Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.
>>
>>Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of
>God.
>>
>>Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
>>Reformed Baptist Church of God.
>>
>>Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed Baptist
>>Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
>>1915, was the answer.
>>
>>Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off.
>>
>>------------------
>>
>>I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
>>community.
>>
>>But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.
>>
>>
>>I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that a
>>large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
>>the Internet itself.
>>
>>When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
>>customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
>>name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
>>money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
>>vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
>>no fault of their own.
>>
>>This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
>>significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so many
>>customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it
>has
>>more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they
>needed
>>to be.
>>
>>When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
>>registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
>>registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars
>-
>>and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may damage
>>confidence in the actual domain name system itself.
>>
>>What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
>>lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of
>domains
>>registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?
>>
>>What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
>>their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
>>there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
>>did they know they can trust a domain or website again?
>>
>>
>>Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
>>greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company
>that
>>runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from a
>>massive increase in spam.
>>
>>What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD?
>>
>>What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled
>combination
>>of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
>>quite probably porn.
>>
>>What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the website
>>they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000 emails
>>they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000
>has
>>just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
>>everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on
>it.
>>
>>This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from
>happening.
>>It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable
>failure
>>systems have to be put in place.
>>
>>But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
>>insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging.
>>
>>
>>Just my two cents/pence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>>
>>Dear List
>>
>>the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global (boderless)
>>nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
>>organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
>>Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation and
>>to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
>>communication rights and freedoms).
>>
>>If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
>>hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
>>Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
>>reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
>>potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
>>"public order", "public health " and "moral".
>>
>>In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
>>national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see
>the
>>right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
>>universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
>>limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and
>reputations
>>or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values.
>>
>>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
>>particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
>>killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
>>the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda
>has
>>to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other
>nations
>>have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
>>that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is always
>>a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
>>constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
>>independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
>>conflicting values.
>>
>>The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
>>of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the late
>>1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon
>papers
>>where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
>>secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
>>security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the right
>>to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
>>numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
>>justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
>>that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
>>and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the
>first
>>amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued that
>>in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US
>citizens
>>limitations are justified.
>>
>>The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
>>independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
>>The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide what
>>is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
>>stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation
>of
>>human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no
>consensus
>>among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
>>thing you can reach is to agree to disagree.
>>
>>I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
>>dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
>>nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral
>independent
>>court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as
>part
>>of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
>>can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such a
>>third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the
>scene
>>and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
>>mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of innovative
>>ideas (and trust).
>>
>>With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD. The
>>two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
>>selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts
>with
>>one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
>>that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it really
>>doesn´t matter.
>>
>>There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
>>they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
>>the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
>>will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
>>do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal?
>Why
>>this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
>>that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
>>Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
>>and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
>>this means nothing.
>>
>>If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
>>places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt
>for
>>names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
>>else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which obliges
>>all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What will
>>happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
>>TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for additional
>>domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their content
>>(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
>>how to bypass this official blockage.
>>
>>What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
>>more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
>>
>>Wolfgang
>>
>>>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  5 16:40:54 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 16:40:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 

>Sorry, Milton, I was just messin with ya,

McTim, it's so amusing when you try to do this. You always fail. 

>the 
>"global routing table" is merely a phrase used 
>in routing discussions. There really is no
>such animal.  No one CAN have policy authority over 
>something that exists in peoples heads as an abstract concept.

I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Almost everything that humans have
"policy authority" over is represented by an abstract concept: the
nation, property, the DNS root, you name it. 

If people responsible for running networks use a phrase like "global
routing table(s)" to describe something (and they do) there's a very
good chance that the phrase stands for something meaningful, and that
there is utility in describing it as such. 

Take for example the phrase "the electromagnetic spectrum." That is an
abstract human concept. There is no "spectrum" to be found in nature; it
does not really "exist" in the sense that a chair exists. It is a schema
humans use to classify electromagnetic energy so that they can manage
and use it better. But try to coordinate radio frequency use without
that concept. You can bet that it matters a lot how we decide to carve
up the spectrum; how we define it, how policies are applied to it.
Hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.

>> Currently, Tier one ISPs make those decisions in an autonomous,
>> self-regulatory manner.
>
>See above, whoever told you that one was pulling your leg m8.

No, sorry, you're incorrect. When you say: 

>These folk determine their own routing policies 
>(who they peer with, what routes they "listen to", etc). 

That sounds to me very much like "ISPs make those decisions in an
autonomous, self-regulatory manner."  Maybe you don't understand that
language, but from a regulatory/institutional standpoint that's what is
going on. 

Bottom line, McTim: want to have an honest dialogue, in which both of us
might learn something from the other? Or not? When are you going to stop
pretending that no one on this list knows anything about the technical
infrastructure but you? 
You end up making yourself look bad, not me.

--MM


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Oct  5 17:54:58 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 17:54:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] News of the OECD mobilization
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E0B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/5/3273492.html


Milton Mueller, Professor
Syracuse University 
School of Information Studies
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
------------------------------
The Convergence Center:
http://www.digitalconvergence.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 drake at hei.unige.ch  Sat Oct  6 00:28:02 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:28:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] News of the OECD mobilization
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E0B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C32CDB72.DD22%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Milton,

Thanks for the update.  I can't help notice though that with the exception
of Karen, the CS people you report are involved all seem to be from the US
and Canada.  I understand from Allison at EPIC that Public Voice plans to
establish a listserv, which should help, but what other steps do
EPIC/IGP/APC as our facilitators plan to take to build inclusive links with
the larger global CS configurations, like the caucus, that have been
involved in WSIS, IGF, etc? This would be useful and in keeping with the
OECD's aspirations as I understood them from prior discussions.

Best,

Bill


On 10/5/07 11:54 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/5/3273492.html


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at acm.org  Sat Oct  6 03:31:56 2007
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:01:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F20B7318-3532-4B4A-B2D7-BCA5A6280577@acm.org>

hi,

On 5 okt 2007, at 23.27, McTim wrote:

> Adding some Layer 9 fluff on the routing system might be the
> straw that breaks the camel's back.


the poor camel's back is already broken and has been for a while.  we  
have riding a camel wearing a truss for years.

a.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/e2e88f57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/e2e88f57/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Sat Oct  6 03:49:10 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 13:19:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com>


On 6 okt 2007, at 02.10, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> If people responsible for running networks use a phrase like "global
> routing table(s)" to describe something (and they do) there's a very
> good chance that the phrase stands for something meaningful, and that
> there is utility in describing it as such.


i would agree.  while it is true that there is no global routing  
table as in some list sitting in one place somewhere, the entire  
point of routing protocols is to build a distributed global routing  
table.   these days, that distributed table never settles down, i.e.  
never converges, and hence there is never a single global table.  but  
to say this is as if 'to say not only can you not put your foot in  
the same river twice, you can't even but it in once'.  there still  
are rivers, even if i can't put my foot in it even once.

it s also true that there is routing policy that is instantiated in  
these tables and some of it has to do with financial and political  
considerations - who will be allowed to transit a particular network  
is often a business and/or political decision.

but having said that, i certainly don't find myself in favor of some  
sort of top down policy control for these essentially local policy  
decisions.    and the idea of some regulatory entity having something  
to say about routing policy is somewhat frightening.

a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/9a6db366/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/9a6db366/attachment.txt>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 07:05:50 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 14:05:50 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710060405m64672d98r4fb2fa54b3bf15b2@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/5/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
>
> >Sorry, Milton, I was just messin with ya,
>
> McTim, it's so amusing when you try to do this. You always fail.

not according to the feedback I get off-list ;-)

>
> >the
> >"global routing table" is merely a phrase used
> >in routing discussions. There really is no
> >such animal.  No one CAN have policy authority over
> >something that exists in peoples heads as an abstract concept.
>
> I'm afraid you are quite wrong. Almost everything that humans have
> "policy authority" over is represented by an abstract concept: the
> nation, property, the DNS root, you name it.

The difference is those things are represented by tangible things,
land, a car, a file respectively.  The GRT is not tangible (although
parts of it are, in the same way the root zone is.

>
> If people responsible for running networks use a phrase like "global
> routing table(s)" to describe something (and they do) there's a very
> good chance that the phrase stands for something meaningful, and that
> there is utility in describing it as such.
>

It's quite useful, that doesn't mean it is extant. Unicorns and
Dragons spring to mind.
I can't imagine a policy authority for those ;-)

> Take for example the phrase "the electromagnetic spectrum." That is an
> abstract human concept. There is no "spectrum" to be found in nature; it
> does not really "exist" in the sense that a chair exists. It is a schema
> humans use to classify electromagnetic energy so that they can manage
> and use it better. But try to coordinate radio frequency use without
> that concept. You can bet that it matters a lot how we decide to carve
> up the spectrum; how we define it, how policies are applied to it.
> Hundreds of billions of dollars at stake.
>

I think we agree that the map is not the territory.  There are partial
"maps" of what we call the GRT, but IIUC, (and as Avri suggests in her
2nd post today) there isn't A map of it.  Nor do we want to create a
single cartographer.


> >> Currently, Tier one ISPs make those decisions in an autonomous,
> >> self-regulatory manner.
> >
> >See above, whoever told you that one was pulling your leg m8.
>
> No, sorry, you're incorrect. When you say:
>
> >These folk determine their own routing policies
> >(who they peer with, what routes they "listen to", etc).


It's entirely correct, ask the folk who run the routers for Sysracuse
Univ. who is in charge of your routing policy.

>
> That sounds to me very much like "ISPs make those decisions in an
> autonomous, self-regulatory manner."  Maybe you don't understand that
> language, but from a regulatory/institutional standpoint that's what is
> going on.


A) It's not just ISPs (look at your own institution)

B) it's not just Tier 1s

C) Since I have been arguing for autonomous self regulation on this
list since I joined, I think I understand the terminology

>
> Bottom line, McTim: want to have an honest dialogue, in which both of us
> might learn something from the other? Or not? When are you going to stop
> pretending that no one on this list knows anything about the technical
> infrastructure but you?

I have never pretended that.  There are lots of folk on this list who
are far more knowledgeable than I.  IN fact, I have learned much of
what I know about routing from some of them.

If by "honest dialogue, you mean "MM gets to bully the list" a la last
para of http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-09/msg00411.html,
then no, but if you mean sharing experiences, presenting opinions and
avoiding argumentum ad hominem, then yes.

Didn't we have this discussion ~2 years ago?

-- 
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 vb at bertola.eu  Sat Oct  6 07:34:17 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 13:34:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>

Kieren McCarthy ha scritto:
> I agree with Ray on this, but I would like to know **why** people aren’t 
> involving themselves in the open fora specifically constructed to gather 
> the sort of input that they claiming is lacking.
> 
>  
> 
> There is a surprising lack of candour about the realities of the 
> situation considering the passion that exists out there.
> 
>  
> 
> Is it because:
> 
>  
> 
>     * People don’t know the fora exist?
>     * Feel the fora are not effective?
>     * Feel the fora are controlled?
>     * Because there is no clear thread from input to outcome?
>     * Or is it because people simply don’t like the fact that their
>       views do not make it through the process?
>     * Because to interact is simply too time-consuming?
>     * Because the methods of interaction are intimidating or difficult?

Thinking more at IETF-like places (rather than at ICANN, which is 
already and increasingly a half-blooded creature), I think that there 
still is a problem of reciprocal acceptance and understanding, deriving 
from the social homogeneity of the environment. Even if a policy list is 
formally open, putting one development expert from Africa among 50 white 
engineers from North America and Europe (usually 80% male) is likely to 
generate all sorts of bad group dynamics, up to the point of bitterly 
driving the heterogeneous element away. Sure you can make your points 
about human rights or the importance of ICT for development, but the 
other partecipants won't be very receptive to them, and in some cases 
won't understand them at all, as they derive from needs that they don't 
have, and experiences that they've never undergone.

Of course, this also applies the other way, when the engineers venture 
into the UN system...

The only solution is to put sociologists and technologists, activists 
and businesspersons into the mix in similar proportions, which is what 
we tried to do by imagining the IGF.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 16:35:01 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:35:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] News of the OECD mobilization
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E0B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E0B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <016b01c80858$5eeace90$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

I should jump in here and explain that I was one of two official bloggers at
the OECD participative web conference.


You can find all my ramblings (and those of fellow blogger Richard Akerman)
on an OECD blog here:
http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_39230833_1_1_1_1_1,00.html


The first post btw is a quick unofficial summary that the OECD staff knocked
up overnight to present to the countries the next day.





Kieren




-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 5:55 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] News of the OECD mobilization


http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/5/3273492.html


Milton Mueller, Professor
Syracuse University 
School of Information Studies
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
------------------------------
The Convergence Center:
http://www.digitalconvergence.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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 16:29:04 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:29:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <p06230903c32c4b6a9d19@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]> <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <p06230903c32c4b6a9d19@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <016a01c80857$8a4713b0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

> I don't see you disagreeing with the rest of my discussion, 
> which is the important part.

I'm afraid I disagreed with every word of it. Even the word "and" appeared
to have got the wrong end of the stick.



> I'm not sure what "future issues" you wish to "pre-empt" but...

Okay, now this is just bizarre. A few of the issues were outlined on the
self-same email. 


I think I'll save us all some time and stop here.




Kieren






-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 4:44 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs

Okay, well, then, what about the rest of the points I made below under the
assumption that the gTLD space is going to be expanded?  I don't see you
disagreeing with the rest of my discussion, which is the important part.

I'm not sure what "future issues" you wish to "pre-empt" but it may be that
some important future issues (such as balancing various competing human
rights that will remain systematically in conflict forever) simply cannot
be pre-empted without doing massive structural injustice to legitimate
political authority and processes.

Sometimes a community (including a broad world community) *needs* to work
through difficult issues in a way that is politically broadly accountable,
rather than trying to avoid confronting (excuse me, "pre-empt") the issues
in the back rooms.

The problem is that the "issues" can *not* really be pre-empted.  They
would simply be decided by fiat in a way that allows the most powerful back
room participants to have their way without inconvenient obstruction by
weaker stakeholders with contrasting interests.

What is pre-empted is a process for ensuring independently accountable
justice.  The issues themselves are eternal and can never be pre-empted per
se.

Dan



At 3:58 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>
>Hi Dan
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>I have been going on about gTLD expansion for as long as I can remember.
>
>I think for example the argument that "domains don't matter because we have
>Google" is fundamentally flawed: Google is just a company, and a company
>that uses the DNS extensively in building its rankings, plus one which
makes
>nearly all its money from companies that have well-defined domain names.
>
>I think gTLD expansion is probably the *only* solution to the intellectual
>property issues that have disrupted so many discussions over the years (if
>everyone goes to .movie for films, where is the damage to your product if
>someone has your film title under a .org?)
>
>I think gTLD expansion is the undeniable future of the Internet. I think it
>is the next revolutionary step in applications - not facebook.com but
>.facebook.
>
>My concern stems from the fact that so many brains are being banged against
>one another rather than working together to predict and pre-empt future
>issues.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:36 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>
>Kieren,
>
>It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>Seth Finkelstein made some similar arguments on the ICANN public forum, I
>believe.
>
>If we didn't expand the gTLD space, then the control issues would not be
>prominent because there would be nothing to control (given that the current
>crop of gTLDs is already a fait accompli).  That's one way to avoid the
>censorship issue: remove the option for any new "expression" in this realm
>(of gTLD strings) whatsoever.
>
>But ICANN seems to have found consensus that it would be good to expand the
>gTLD space.  Perhaps because it creates more exponential revenue for ICANN,
>I don't know, just one idea.
>
>
>So, now we have to consider *how* to expand it, given that the expansion
>seems assured as a matter of ICANN policy.
>
>When you appeal to registries failing, etc., it seems that would fall under
>the consideration of operational criteria, which nobody is objecting to as
>a valid consideration for evaluating a new registry application.  Technical
>and operational criteria are perfectly reasonable for ICANN to consider
>when approving gTLD applications.  No question, no argument.
>
>However your example with Registerfly was for a 2LD registrar, not a gTLD
>registry.  I am not aware of the failure of any gTLD registries.  In any
>event, this case brought about a move to review the registrar accreditation
>processes at ICANN, and well this should happen.  But such accreditation is
>still not expected to involve consideration of expression-related criteria
>for granting 2LDs, for example.  (This is one of the common arguments for
>doing it for TLDs: you can still have "anythingyouwant.com" even if
>".anythingyouwant" is rejected.)
>
>"Sloppy security" is also an operational matter.  Perhaps security
>standards should be established for registries.  Again, not an
>expression-related matter.
>
>Domain tasting and porn are also not at issue in the currently proposed
>gTLD policy -- unless the proposed gTLD string *itself* constitutes "porn",
>and who is going to make *that* decision???  Do you really want *ICANN* to
>draw that line?  I shudder at the thought.
>
>In any case, nothing you have written here seems to conflict with, say, the
>NCUC position, which is to allow genuine technical and operational
>considerations into gTLD application evaluation but to keep
>expression-related criteria out of the process at ICANN per se (and to
>close procedural loopholes that would allow censorship without even having
>to explain why), and let existing political jurisdictions prosecute
>violations within their jurisdictions.
>
>If an authoritarian nation wants to create a chilling effect with regard to
>expressive characteristics of gTLD registries within their borders, or to
>even block some gTLDs from being found within their national network, at
>least let that decision stay within their borders and not be imposed on the
>rest of the world.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 1:31 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>>I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview
on
>>this issue of new gTLDs for a week.
>>
>>Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
>>and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.
>>
>>I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
>>different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I
>just
>>don't think either will happen.
>>
>>I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
>>reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
>>provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.
>>
>>It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that
even
>>those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
>>together.
>>
>>Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement
and
>>it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement.
>>
>>In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
>>clearly:
>>
>>------------------
>>
>>I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
>>jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :
>>
>>Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I
>>
>>Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.
>>
>>Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.
>>
>>Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of
>God.
>>
>>Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
>>Reformed Baptist Church of God.
>>
>>Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed
Baptist
>>Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
>>1915, was the answer.
>>
>>Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off.
>>
>>------------------
>>
>>I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
>>community.
>>
>>But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.
>>
>>
>>I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that
a
>>large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
>>the Internet itself.
>>
>>When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
>>customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
>>name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
>>money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
>>vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
>>no fault of their own.
>>
>>This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
>>significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so
many
>>customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it
>has
>>more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they
>needed
>>to be.
>>
>>When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
>>registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
>>registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars
>-
>>and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may
damage
>>confidence in the actual domain name system itself.
>>
>>What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
>>lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of
>domains
>>registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?
>>
>>What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
>>their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
>>there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
>>did they know they can trust a domain or website again?
>>
>>
>>Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
>>greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company
>that
>>runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from
a
>>massive increase in spam.
>>
>>What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD?
>>
>>What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled
>combination
>>of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
>>quite probably porn.
>>
>>What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the
website
>>they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000
emails
>>they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000
>has
>>just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
>>everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on
>it.
>>
>>This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from
>happening.
>>It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable
>failure
>>systems have to be put in place.
>>
>>But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
>>insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging.
>>
>>
>>Just my two cents/pence.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>>
>>Dear List
>>
>>the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global
(boderless)
>>nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
>>organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
>>Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation
and
>>to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
>>communication rights and freedoms).
>>
>>If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
>>hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
>>Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
>>reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
>>potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
>>"public order", "public health " and "moral".
>>
>>In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
>>national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see
>the
>>right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
>>universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
>>limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and
>reputations
>>or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values.
>>
>>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
>>particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
>>killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
>>the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda
>has
>>to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other
>nations
>>have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
>>that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is
always
>>a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
>>constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
>>independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
>>conflicting values.
>>
>>The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
>>of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the
late
>>1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon
>papers
>>where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
>>secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
>>security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the
right
>>to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
>>numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
>>justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
>>that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
>>and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the
>first
>>amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued
that
>>in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US
>citizens
>>limitations are justified.
>>
>>The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
>>independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
>>The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide
what
>>is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
>>stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation
>of
>>human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no
>consensus
>>among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
>>thing you can reach is to agree to disagree.
>>
>>I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
>>dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
>>nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral
>independent
>>court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as
>part
>>of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
>>can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such
a
>>third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the
>scene
>>and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
>>mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of
innovative
>>ideas (and trust).
>>
>>With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD.
The
>>two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
>>selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts
>with
>>one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
>>that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it
really
>>doesn´t matter.
>>
>>There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
>>they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
>>the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
>>will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
>>do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal?
>Why
>>this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
>>that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
>>Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
>>and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
>>this means nothing.
>>
>>If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
>>places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt
>for
>>names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
>>else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which
obliges
>>all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What
will
>>happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
>>TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for
additional
>>domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their
content
>>(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
>>how to bypass this official blockage.
>>
>>What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
>>more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
>>
>>Wolfgang
>>
>>>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com  Sat Oct  6 17:08:37 2007
From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:08:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>

I was going to ask if there are any rules of behaviour for this list, but
then thought better of it. 

Then I thought I might propose some. And definitely thought better of that. 

So instead I have come up with a list of useful shorthand acronyms that
could be used in place of silence. Excellence in use to be rewarded by a
free drink from ICANN's general manager of public participation at an ICANN
meeting of your choice.



AH - Ad Hominum attack. A list favourite and an excellent way of avoiding
substantive discussion.

BS - Bait Served. To help highlight when someone is being specifically
provoked into an angry response.

BT - Bait Taken. When someone is daft enough to respond to the BS.

CA - Circular Argument. For those emails that cover the same issue with the
same points all over again.

CT - Conspiracy Theory. For use when someone offers dark mutterings without
a drop of factual evidence.

NIA - Not ICANN Again. For when it all gets too much.

NAI - North American Ideology. Not to be confused with NIA. Particular
useful when issues of access arise.

UN - Utter Nonsense. Not to be confused with the United Nations, which
breeds it own particular type of nonsense.

WT - Wasting Time. When a decision is approaching deadline and the list goes
off on a three-day tangent.




I would like to start off the process by officially labeling this message
"BS".



Kieren

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Oct  6 17:51:03 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 17:51:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

 

   _____  

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 



it s also true that there is routing policy that is instantiated in these tables and some of it has to do with financial and political considerations - who will be allowed to transit a particular network is often a business and/or political decision.

 

Exactly. More fundamentally, there are a host of contractual, legal and financial incentives that govern how and why people route the way they do. Those arrangements are affected by public policy, sometimes directly sometimes indirectly. The fact that technical people are often unaware of these environmental factors doesn’t mean they don’t exist and are not important. 

 

but having said that, i certainly don't find myself in favor of some sort of top down policy control for these essentially local policy decisions.    and the idea of some regulatory entity having something to say about routing policy is somewhat frightening.

 

Anyone who knows my politics knows that I wouldn’t’ favor “top-down regulation” either. But we do have regulatory agencies that “have something to say about routing policy” – they are called Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). (I hope we don’t now have a useless conversation about whether RIRs are policy making entities or not.) The way RIRs allocate addresses has a lot to do with how routing takes place, doesn’t it? Block size, imposition of route aggregation constraints, and the need to register addresses with RIRs all have some kind of impact. The whole decision whether to create RIRs and what region qualifies for one would be a simple example of a decision that would have a major effect on routing policy. 

 

More generally, it is not inconceivable that there might be institutional decisions made at the national or global regarding liability, security, address transferability, police surveillance, contracting, consumer protection, etc. that could either facilitate the coordination of routes, or make the process worse.

 

I am eager to explore these issues. Unfortunately, it’s all too rare to find people like Karl Auerbach or Avri – technical people who are nevertheless willing to think about the economic and political aspects of the technical decision making. 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date: 10/6/2007 10:18 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date: 10/6/2007 10:18 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/25c47cad/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071006/25c47cad/attachment.txt>

From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Oct  6 18:01:00 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:01:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Kieren:
This is funny, thanks! In the same spirit, let me propose to add another acronym to your list:

APE: Apologia by Paid Employees. 

These are recurrent posts by employees of institutions that come under criticism on this list, designed to protect and defend the institution and/or its policies. Lists that have too many APEs tend to break down after a while, as there is an imbalance between the volunteer civil society actors who can only sustain these dialogues in their spare time, and the professional, well-funded employees who derive their salaries from the taxes imposed on the public by the institution they defend. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 5:09 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
> 
> I was going to ask if there are any rules of behaviour for this list, but
> then thought better of it.
> 
> Then I thought I might propose some. And definitely thought better of
> that.
> 
> So instead I have come up with a list of useful shorthand acronyms that
> could be used in place of silence. Excellence in use to be rewarded by a
> free drink from ICANN's general manager of public participation at an
> ICANN
> meeting of your choice.
> 
> 
> 
> AH - Ad Hominum attack. A list favourite and an excellent way of avoiding
> substantive discussion.
> 
> BS - Bait Served. To help highlight when someone is being specifically
> provoked into an angry response.
> 
> BT - Bait Taken. When someone is daft enough to respond to the BS.
> 
> CA - Circular Argument. For those emails that cover the same issue with
> the
> same points all over again.
> 
> CT - Conspiracy Theory. For use when someone offers dark mutterings
> without
> a drop of factual evidence.
> 
> NIA - Not ICANN Again. For when it all gets too much.
> 
> NAI - North American Ideology. Not to be confused with NIA. Particular
> useful when issues of access arise.
> 
> UN - Utter Nonsense. Not to be confused with the United Nations, which
> breeds it own particular type of nonsense.
> 
> WT - Wasting Time. When a decision is approaching deadline and the list
> goes
> off on a three-day tangent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to start off the process by officially labeling this message
> "BS".
> 
> 
> 
> Kieren
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date: 10/6/2007
> 10:18 AM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date: 10/6/2007 10:18 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  Sat Oct  6 21:23:44 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:23:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <47083520.7090606@rits.org.br>

Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Thinking more at IETF-like places (rather than at ICANN, which is 
> already and increasingly a half-blooded creature), I think that there 
> still is a problem of reciprocal acceptance and understanding, deriving 
> from the social homogeneity of the environment. Even if a policy list is 
> formally open, putting one development expert from Africa among 50 white 
> engineers from North America and Europe (usually 80% male) is likely to 
> generate all sorts of bad group dynamics, up to the point of bitterly 
> driving the heterogeneous element away. Sure you can make your points 
> about human rights or the importance of ICT for development, but the 
> other partecipants won't be very receptive to them, and in some cases 
> won't understand them at all, as they derive from needs that they don't 
> have, and experiences that they've never undergone.
> 
> Of course, this also applies the other way, when the engineers venture 
> into the UN system...
> 
> The only solution is to put sociologists and technologists, activists 
> and businesspersons into the mix in similar proportions, which is what 
> we tried to do by imagining the IGF.

We did try, but the actual IGF semms to be a lame beast and attempts to 
make it be more meaningful (and influential, gods forbid) are confronted 
with fierce resistance...

--c.a.

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sat Oct  6 21:40:01 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 07:10:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <47083520.7090606@rits.org.br>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <47083520.7090606@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <796DC606-0473-4F4A-ADC4-F69B43972543@psg.com>


On 7 okt 2007, at 06.53, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> We did try, but the actual IGF semms to be a lame beast and  
> attempts to make it be more meaningful (and influential, gods  
> forbid) are confronted with fierce resistance...


are we giving up already?

a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071007/294934e9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071007/294934e9/attachment.txt>

From ca at rits.org.br  Sat Oct  6 23:00:44 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:00:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a   "Critical
 Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <796DC606-0473-4F4A-ADC4-F69B43972543@psg.com>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu> <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <47083520.7090606@rits.org.br> <796DC606-0473-4F4A-ADC4-F69B43972543@psg.com>
Message-ID: <47084BDC.5030704@rits.org.br>

:)

NO!

:)

--c.a.

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> On 7 okt 2007, at 06.53, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
>> We did try, but the actual IGF semms to be a lame beast and attempts 
>> to make it be more meaningful (and influential, gods forbid) are 
>> confronted with fierce resistance...
> 
> 
> are we giving up already?
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1052 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 18:53

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Sun Oct  7 00:15:34 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:15:34 -0300
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200710070115.AA15341062@rits.org.br>

Sorry, Kieren, "CA" is already taken! :)

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Kieren McCarthy"
<kierenmccarthy at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 18:01:00 -0400
Subject: RE: [governance] Mailing list shorthand

> Kieren:
> This is funny, thanks! In the same spirit, let me propose to add
> another acronym to your list:
> 
> APE: Apologia by Paid Employees. 
> 
> These are recurrent posts by employees of institutions that come
> under criticism on this list, designed to protect and defend the
> institution and/or its policies. Lists that have too many APEs tend
> to break down after a while, as there is an imbalance between the
> volunteer civil society actors who can only sustain these dialogues
> in their spare time, and the professional, well-funded employees who
> derive their salaries from the taxes imposed on the public by the
> institution they defend. 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 5:09 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
> > 
> > I was going to ask if there are any rules of behaviour for this
> list, but
> > then thought better of it.
> > 
> > Then I thought I might propose some. And definitely thought better
> of
> > that.
> > 
> > So instead I have come up with a list of useful shorthand acronyms
> that
> > could be used in place of silence. Excellence in use to be rewarded
> by a
> > free drink from ICANN's general manager of public participation at
> an
> > ICANN
> > meeting of your choice.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > AH - Ad Hominum attack. A list favourite and an excellent way of
> avoiding
> > substantive discussion.
> > 
> > BS - Bait Served. To help highlight when someone is being
> specifically
> > provoked into an angry response.
> > 
> > BT - Bait Taken. When someone is daft enough to respond to the BS.
> > 
> > CA - Circular Argument. For those emails that cover the same issue
> with
> > the
> > same points all over again.
> > 
> > CT - Conspiracy Theory. For use when someone offers dark mutterings
> > without
> > a drop of factual evidence.
> > 
> > NIA - Not ICANN Again. For when it all gets too much.
> > 
> > NAI - North American Ideology. Not to be confused with NIA.
> Particular
> > useful when issues of access arise.
> > 
> > UN - Utter Nonsense. Not to be confused with the United Nations,
> which
> > breeds it own particular type of nonsense.
> > 
> > WT - Wasting Time. When a decision is approaching deadline and the
> list
> > goes
> > off on a three-day tangent.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to start off the process by officially labeling this
> message
> > "BS".
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Kieren


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sun Oct  7 02:57:41 2007
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 08:57:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
	 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org>
	 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
	 <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
	 <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
	 <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0710062357lcc56ab9q6a6f7011db92e94d@mail.gmail.com>

Well done, Milton!!! so, let's add "IST" - "I second that", sometime known
as a "metoo". Guess this will become a CA and a WT.

PS: As pointed out by Milton, those who pay our way through, if we don't get
to these meetings with the free drinks, would you - BS - consider freeing up
the internet for drinks delivery? Otherwise, anybody from CS, please next
time you see Kieran, ask for a drink on my name, I'm sure I already qualify,
having used four of his UN acronyms, plus added a new one.

Rui

On 07/10/2007, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Kieren:
> This is funny, thanks! In the same spirit, let me propose to add another
> acronym to your list:
>
> APE: Apologia by Paid Employees.
>
> These are recurrent posts by employees of institutions that come under
> criticism on this list, designed to protect and defend the institution
> and/or its policies. Lists that have too many APEs tend to break down after
> a while, as there is an imbalance between the volunteer civil society actors
> who can only sustain these dialogues in their spare time, and the
> professional, well-funded employees who derive their salaries from the taxes
> imposed on the public by the institution they defend.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kieren McCarthy [mailto:kierenmccarthy at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 5:09 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
> >
> > I was going to ask if there are any rules of behaviour for this list,
> but
> > then thought better of it.
> >
> > Then I thought I might propose some. And definitely thought better of
> > that.
> >
> > So instead I have come up with a list of useful shorthand acronyms that
> > could be used in place of silence. Excellence in use to be rewarded by a
> > free drink from ICANN's general manager of public participation at an
> > ICANN
> > meeting of your choice.
> >
> >
> >
> > AH - Ad Hominum attack. A list favourite and an excellent way of
> avoiding
> > substantive discussion.
> >
> > BS - Bait Served. To help highlight when someone is being specifically
> > provoked into an angry response.
> >
> > BT - Bait Taken. When someone is daft enough to respond to the BS.
> >
> > CA - Circular Argument. For those emails that cover the same issue with
> > the
> > same points all over again.
> >
> > CT - Conspiracy Theory. For use when someone offers dark mutterings
> > without
> > a drop of factual evidence.
> >
> > NIA - Not ICANN Again. For when it all gets too much.
> >
> > NAI - North American Ideology. Not to be confused with NIA. Particular
> > useful when issues of access arise.
> >
> > UN - Utter Nonsense. Not to be confused with the United Nations, which
> > breeds it own particular type of nonsense.
> >
> > WT - Wasting Time. When a decision is approaching deadline and the list
> > goes
> > off on a three-day tangent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to start off the process by officially labeling this
> message
> > "BS".
> >
> >
> >
> > Kieren
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date:
> 10/6/2007
> > 10:18 AM
> >
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.2/1053 - Release Date: 10/6/2007
> 10:18 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
>



-- 
________________________________________________


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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071007/c4a8b3a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071007/c4a8b3a9/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Sun Oct  7 07:05:48 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:05:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <s7022b25.050@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org>
 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
 <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu>
 <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4708c838.1235640a.6dcd.ffffcd3f@mx.google.com>

At 18:01 10/6/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>Kieren:
>This is funny, thanks! In the same spirit, let me propose to add 
>another acronym to your list:

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah...
The usual way to try to shut down someone is to attack him/herself 
personaly, rather than the arguments and facts. In that way of 
thinking, I see you have two different ways, or you give the others 
two choices: you speak, they are silent. Or, second option: they are 
silent, you speak.

In the context of the CT, I could go ahead and say (but I don't say 
it, I just might say it) that same goes for anyone who is not 
unemployed, and is participating in this list. I am sure we can find 
some interest either in an academic institution, in a project, in a 
grant giving organization, in a company, in you-name-it to be on this 
list, and participate with opinions, which later may be entered in 
the monthly or quarterly reports. To say that someone is a civil 
society volunteer only if he or she does not work somewhere, or even 
more - to claim that in the employer's contract of Kieren there's a 
point which says, "mass participation in mailing lists of the civil 
society" is equally wrong.





Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com

The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
not of any organizations, associated with or related to
the author in any given way.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Sun Oct  7 15:22:47 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:22:47 -0300
Subject: [governance] Mailing list shorthand
In-Reply-To: <4708c838.1235640a.6dcd.ffffcd3f@mx.google.com>
References: <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202932207FF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4708c838.1235640a.6dcd.ffffcd3f@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200710071622.AA22471064@rits.org.br>

Veni, what to you so long? I was starting to worry... :)

frt rgds

--c.a.


-----Original Message-----
From: veni markovski <veni at veni.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:05:48 -0400
Subject: RE: [governance] Mailing list shorthand

> At 18:01 10/6/2007  -0400, you wrote:
> >Kieren:
> >This is funny, thanks! In the same spirit, let me propose to add 
> >another acronym to your list:
> 
> Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah...
> The usual way to try to shut down someone is to attack him/herself 
> personaly, rather than the arguments and facts. In that way of 
> thinking, I see you have two different ways, or you give the others 
> two choices: you speak, they are silent. Or, second option: they are 
> silent, you speak.
> 
> In the context of the CT, I could go ahead and say (but I don't say 
> it, I just might say it) that same goes for anyone who is not 
> unemployed, and is participating in this list. I am sure we can find 
> some interest either in an academic institution, in a project, in a 
> grant giving organization, in a company, in you-name-it to be on this
> list, and participate with opinions, which later may be entered in 
> the monthly or quarterly reports. To say that someone is a civil 
> society volunteer only if he or she does not work somewhere, or even 
> more - to claim that in the employer's contract of Kieren there's a 
> point which says, "mass participation in mailing lists of the civil 
> society" is equally wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Veni Markovski
> http://www.veni.com
> 
> check also my blog:
> http://blog.veni.com
> 
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
> not of any organizations, associated with or related to
> the author in any given way.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  7 15:47:15 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:47:15 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <016a01c80857$8a4713b0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <p06230901c32c38c03d5f@[10.0.1.2]>
 <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
 <p06230903c32c4b6a9d19@[10.0.1.2]>
 <016a01c80857$8a4713b0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356>
Message-ID: <p06230900c32ee722d22c@[10.0.1.3]>

Okay Kieren,

I addressed all your issues, so I thought, and it seemed that you didn't
address mine at all.  It seems you have a blind spot there (with regard to
accountable political authority to balance competing human rights).

If you want to let it rest there, fine.  But the issue will not and cannot
go away, however much you may wish for ICANN to "pre-empt" it.  This is the
crux of the debate here.

Dan



At 4:29 PM -0400 10/6/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> I don't see you disagreeing with the rest of my discussion,
>> which is the important part.
>
>I'm afraid I disagreed with every word of it. Even the word "and" appeared
>to have got the wrong end of the stick.
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure what "future issues" you wish to "pre-empt" but...
>
>Okay, now this is just bizarre. A few of the issues were outlined on the
>self-same email.
>
>
>I think I'll save us all some time and stop here.
>
>
>
>
>Kieren
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 4:44 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>
>Okay, well, then, what about the rest of the points I made below under the
>assumption that the gTLD space is going to be expanded?  I don't see you
>disagreeing with the rest of my discussion, which is the important part.
>
>I'm not sure what "future issues" you wish to "pre-empt" but it may be that
>some important future issues (such as balancing various competing human
>rights that will remain systematically in conflict forever) simply cannot
>be pre-empted without doing massive structural injustice to legitimate
>political authority and processes.
>
>Sometimes a community (including a broad world community) *needs* to work
>through difficult issues in a way that is politically broadly accountable,
>rather than trying to avoid confronting (excuse me, "pre-empt") the issues
>in the back rooms.
>
>The problem is that the "issues" can *not* really be pre-empted.  They
>would simply be decided by fiat in a way that allows the most powerful back
>room participants to have their way without inconvenient obstruction by
>weaker stakeholders with contrasting interests.
>
>What is pre-empted is a process for ensuring independently accountable
>justice.  The issues themselves are eternal and can never be pre-empted per
>se.
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>At 3:58 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>>> It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>>
>>I have been going on about gTLD expansion for as long as I can remember.
>>
>>I think for example the argument that "domains don't matter because we have
>>Google" is fundamentally flawed: Google is just a company, and a company
>>that uses the DNS extensively in building its rankings, plus one which
>makes
>>nearly all its money from companies that have well-defined domain names.
>>
>>I think gTLD expansion is probably the *only* solution to the intellectual
>>property issues that have disrupted so many discussions over the years (if
>>everyone goes to .movie for films, where is the damage to your product if
>>someone has your film title under a .org?)
>>
>>I think gTLD expansion is the undeniable future of the Internet. I think it
>>is the next revolutionary step in applications - not facebook.com but
>>.facebook.
>>
>>My concern stems from the fact that so many brains are being banged against
>>one another rather than working together to predict and pre-empt future
>>issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com]
>>Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 3:36 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Subject: RE: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>>
>>Kieren,
>>
>>It sounds like you would rather simply not expand the gTLD space at all.
>>Seth Finkelstein made some similar arguments on the ICANN public forum, I
>>believe.
>>
>>If we didn't expand the gTLD space, then the control issues would not be
>>prominent because there would be nothing to control (given that the current
>>crop of gTLDs is already a fait accompli).  That's one way to avoid the
>>censorship issue: remove the option for any new "expression" in this realm
>>(of gTLD strings) whatsoever.
>>
>>But ICANN seems to have found consensus that it would be good to expand the
>>gTLD space.  Perhaps because it creates more exponential revenue for ICANN,
>>I don't know, just one idea.
>>
>>
>>So, now we have to consider *how* to expand it, given that the expansion
>>seems assured as a matter of ICANN policy.
>>
>>When you appeal to registries failing, etc., it seems that would fall under
>>the consideration of operational criteria, which nobody is objecting to as
>>a valid consideration for evaluating a new registry application.  Technical
>>and operational criteria are perfectly reasonable for ICANN to consider
>>when approving gTLD applications.  No question, no argument.
>>
>>However your example with Registerfly was for a 2LD registrar, not a gTLD
>>registry.  I am not aware of the failure of any gTLD registries.  In any
>>event, this case brought about a move to review the registrar accreditation
>>processes at ICANN, and well this should happen.  But such accreditation is
>>still not expected to involve consideration of expression-related criteria
>>for granting 2LDs, for example.  (This is one of the common arguments for
>>doing it for TLDs: you can still have "anythingyouwant.com" even if
>>".anythingyouwant" is rejected.)
>>
>>"Sloppy security" is also an operational matter.  Perhaps security
>>standards should be established for registries.  Again, not an
>>expression-related matter.
>>
>>Domain tasting and porn are also not at issue in the currently proposed
>>gTLD policy -- unless the proposed gTLD string *itself* constitutes "porn",
>>and who is going to make *that* decision???  Do you really want *ICANN* to
>>draw that line?  I shudder at the thought.
>>
>>In any case, nothing you have written here seems to conflict with, say, the
>>NCUC position, which is to allow genuine technical and operational
>>considerations into gTLD application evaluation but to keep
>>expression-related criteria out of the process at ICANN per se (and to
>>close procedural loopholes that would allow censorship without even having
>>to explain why), and let existing political jurisdictions prosecute
>>violations within their jurisdictions.
>>
>>If an authoritarian nation wants to create a chilling effect with regard to
>>expressive characteristics of gTLD registries within their borders, or to
>>even block some gTLDs from being found within their national network, at
>>least let that decision stay within their borders and not be imposed on the
>>rest of the world.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>At 1:31 PM -0400 10/5/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>>>I've been meaning to respond to Wolfgang's (as ever) insightful overview
>on
>>>this issue of new gTLDs for a week.
>>>
>>>Wolfgang is right of course. Different societies have conflicting values -
>>>and they hold them for very good reasons, and they are deeply ingrained.
>>>
>>>I also agree that global government and the creation of hundreds of
>>>different of new gTLDs would provide the answers to the problems. But I
>>just
>>>don't think either will happen.
>>>
>>>I am writing this sitting in an OECD meeting where 33 governments are
>>>reviewing and discussing an upcoming June 2008 conference that hopes to
>>>provide a forward-looking declaration about the Internet economy.
>>>
>>>It is surprisingly collegial but at the same time there is no way that
>even
>>>those that agree strongly with one another are going to decide their laws
>>>together.
>>>
>>>Even in the closest relationships, there are subtleties of disagreement
>and
>>>it is often the small differences that cause the greatest disagreement.
>>>
>>>In fact, the self-proclaimed World's Funniest Religious Joke covers that
>>>clearly:
>>>
>>>------------------
>>>
>>>I was walking along when I saw a man standing on a bridge getting ready to
>>>jump. I tried to find a reason to dissuade him, and asked :
>>>
>>>Are you religious? Yes, he replied. Great, so am I
>>>
>>>Christian or Buddhist? Christian, he said.
>>>
>>>Episcopalian or Baptist? Baptist, he responded.
>>>
>>>Baptist Church of God, or Baptist Church of The Lord? Baptist Church of
>>God.
>>>
>>>Are you Original Baptist Church of God or Reformed Baptist Church of God?
>>>Reformed Baptist Church of God.
>>>
>>>Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation 1879 or Reformed
>Baptist
>>>Church of God Reformation 1915? Reformed Baptist Church of God Reformation
>>>1915, was the answer.
>>>
>>>Die heretic scum, I said. And pushed him off.
>>>
>>>------------------
>>>
>>>I think that could also be held to be true on occasion with the technical
>>>community.
>>>
>>>But with respect to the issue of new gTLDs.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't think people have considered sufficiently the very real risk that
>a
>>>large expansion in the number of gTLDs could have on broader confidence in
>>>the Internet itself.
>>>
>>>When RegisterFly failed, it undermined the confidence that many of its
>>>customers had in what they probably didn't even know is called the domain
>>>name system. They couldn't understand how it could happen. They had paid
>>>money for their domain and built websites on them and then suddenly, it
>>>vanished. And in some cases, they permanently lost their domains - through
>>>no fault of their own.
>>>
>>>This was a single registrar. And it should be noted that the problem was
>>>significant because it had so many customers. And the reason it has so
>many
>>>customers was because it charged less than everyone else. And because it
>>has
>>>more customers and less money, its systems were not as robust as they
>>needed
>>>to be.
>>>
>>>When the number of gTLDs is expanded, it greatly increases the chance of a
>>>registry failing. The more there are, the larger this risk becomes. When a
>>>registry does fail, it will impact not one but a whole range of registrars
>>-
>>>and I don't think people has quite thought through how much that may
>damage
>>>confidence in the actual domain name system itself.
>>>
>>>What if the registry that fails does so because it has gone for the
>>>lowest-cost model - and so as a result it has a very large number of
>>domains
>>>registered under it (and so a very large number of people)?
>>>
>>>What if that registry is .baby? Tens of thousands of young couples lose
>>>their beloved websites and the digital pictures of their child they stored
>>>there. That damages their confidence not in .baby but in the Internet. How
>>>did they know they can trust a domain or website again?
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps more dangerous is the fact that the more gTLDs there are, the
>>>greater the chances that an entire registry goes AWOL. That the company
>>that
>>>runs .mail decides to sell up to the spammers - and everyone suffers from
>a
>>>massive increase in spam.
>>>
>>>What if sloppy security lets a phisher hack into the .money TLD?
>>>
>>>What happens when domain name tasters take over every misspelled
>>combination
>>>of .com as a registry? And then cover every page with who pays the most -
>>>quite probably porn.
>>>
>>>What if all these things happen at the same time? Someone loses the
>website
>>>they built and all their photos; the same day only five of the 3,000
>emails
>>>they receive is not spam; then their bank calls to tell them that $3,000
>>has
>>>just left their account. They try to find out some information online and
>>>everything they click leads to a website with pictures of naked women on
>>it.
>>>
>>>This is a scenario that *will* happen unless it is prevented from
>>happening.
>>>It means controls need to be put in place and it means that suitable
>>failure
>>>systems have to be put in place.
>>>
>>>But we are 100 miles from even starting that conversation because of the
>>>insistence - wrong in my view - that *any* controls are somehow damaging.
>>>
>>>
>>>Just my two cents/pence.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Kieren
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
>>>[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
>>>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 12:59 PM
>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight; kierenmccarthy at gmail.com;
>>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>Subject: AW: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs
>>>
>>>Dear List
>>>
>>>the basic contradiction here is the conflict between the global
>(boderless)
>>>nature of the cyberspace and the simple fact, that our world (so far) is
>>>organized via nation states and nation states do have according to the UN
>>>Charter the sovereign right to determine their own national legislation
>and
>>>to define what is legal and what is illegal (including information and
>>>communication rights and freedoms).
>>>
>>>If it comes to the right to freedom of expression than we have on the one
>>>hand the universal right, defined in Article 19 of the Human Rights
>>>Declaration which has to be seen in the context of Article 29, which
>>>reaffirms the sovereign right of nation states to restrict this right to
>>>potect other rights and vague defined values like "national security",
>>>"public order", "public health " and "moral".
>>>
>>>In each society you have conflicting values which has to be balanced by a
>>>national legislation. And you have also national taboos. Although we see
>>the
>>>right to freedom of expression as the cornerstone of democracy in an
>>>universal sense, also democracies have legally defined restrictions and
>>>limitations (and taboos) in this field to protect the rights and
>>reputations
>>>or the privacy of third persons are other cultural or non-cultural values.
>>>
>>>In Germany - where the nazi government used freedom of the media, in
>>>particular the radio to spread racist propoganda which paved the way for
>>>killing six millions jews - it was very understandable that the fathers of
>>>the post WWII German Constitution agreed that nazi and racist propaganda
>>has
>>>to be illegal and can not be justified by "freedom of speech". Other
>>nations
>>>have other historical experiences and cultural values. This does not mean
>>>that there is censorship in these countries. In democracies there is
>always
>>>a possibility - in case of a conflict where one party feels that her/his
>>>constitutional right to freedom of expression is surpessed - to go to an
>>>independent court which will make a final decision after balancing the
>>>conflicting values.
>>>
>>>The US courts have over the years produced the most radical interpretation
>>>of freedom of speech (I rememeber the the recent COPA case or from the
>late
>>>1960s the case New York Times vs. President Nixon around the Pentagon
>>papers
>>>where the argument of the US president was to stop the publication of the
>>>secret governmental papers because they would undermine the national
>>>security of the US, but the Supreme Court decided with 5 : 4 that the
>right
>>>to know of the people is a higher value). But also in the US there are
>>>numerous cases where - for various reasons - limitations are seen as
>>>justified. In classical textbooks you will find the story where it is said
>>>that to cry "fire" in a full packed theater - which would provoke a chaos
>>>and could risk the life of US citizens - would not be protected by the
>>first
>>>amendement and its free speech part. An in 1916 or so one judge argued
>that
>>>in cases of "clear and present dangers" for life and property of US
>>citizens
>>>limitations are justified.
>>>
>>>The problem with non-democratic countries is that they do not have an
>>>independent judiciary. In these countries there is no neutral third party.
>>>The decison is made by an involved party which has the power to decide
>what
>>>is good for national security and where freedom of expression has to be
>>>stoppped. Such pratices are critisized in WSIS and elswhere as "violation
>>of
>>>human rights", but power policy is power policy and if there is no
>>consensus
>>>among the involved governments engaged in diplomatic negotiations the only
>>>thing you can reach is to agree to disagree.
>>>
>>>I tell this very well known story just to make clear that we have here a
>>>dilemma that can not be solved, as long as we accept the sovereignty of
>>>nation states. The idea to have a global equivalent to a neutral
>>independent
>>>court is - at least in 2007 - nonsens. Such a mechanism was proposed as
>>part
>>>of the Geneva Broadcasting Convention from 1936 and failed totally. And I
>>>can only echo Milton in his comment for the GNSO Report that to have such
>a
>>>third party committee would allow all kind of horse trading behind the
>>scene
>>>and would give such a commitee a "censorship right". Probably such a
>>>mechanism can be developed. But this will take time and a lot of
>innovative
>>>ideas (and trust).
>>>
>>>With other words, you can NOT avoid a conflict about names in new gTLD.
>The
>>>two options you have is either you accept full censorship by a committee
>>>selected by ICANN, GAC or somebody else or you accept to have conflicts
>>with
>>>one or more parties. The strategy I would propose is to have so many TLDs
>>>that at the end of the day nobody will remember all the names and it
>really
>>>doesn´t matter.
>>>
>>>There are people in Germany which have the family name "Hitler". What can
>>>they do? What the govenrment can do? If drunken people in the Bierzelt of
>>>the Oktoberfest in Munich are crying "Hitler, Hitler" or "Juden raus" they
>>>will be punished by a German court. But what the government or a court can
>>>do with this man from the street who has this damned name of a criminal?
>>Why
>>>this is seen nit as a problem? There are so many family names in Germany
>>>that nobody takes care if one has at his home the name plate "Hitler".
>>>Probably he has a painful life because a lof of people will ask him again
>>>and again whether he is the grandson of the "leader", but for the society
>>>this means nothing.
>>>
>>>If we have so many gTLDs in cyberspace as we have family names in our real
>>>places, nobody will take care. And if one sovereign nation wants to hunt
>>for
>>>names which are seen in their eyes as unacceptable, illegal or something
>>>else, the easiest thing they can do is to release a directive which
>obliges
>>>all ISPs at the territory of this country to block the whole TLD. What
>will
>>>happen? Some people will have no access to websites registered under this
>>>TLD, content providers, registered under this TLD, will look for
>additional
>>>domainnames in  other domains to allow those people to access their
>content
>>>(if they want to reach these groups) and more experienced users will know
>>>how to bypass this official blockage.
>>>
>>>What else? Cyberlife will continue, there will be more opportunities and
>>>more freedoms and also a little bit funny cat and mouse games :-))))
>>>
>>>Wolfgang
>>>
>>>>I refer to this only   murderiof others. for and a democratic society
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From anriette at apc.org  Mon Oct  8 06:48:49 2007
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 12:48:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <C2715E2D13406243A39281EB@as-paul-l-2.local>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <4703A7D6.12856.ABA01E7@anriette.apc.org>, <C2715E2D13406243A39281EB@as-paul-l-2.local>
Message-ID: <470A2731.8834.593BE80@anriette.apc.org>

Thank you to those who responded.  Here is a list of 
governance caucus members who said they would be in 
Rio. There are obviously others as the list is not very 
comprehensive. Many caucus members' names are on 
the list Baudouin posted but I decided *not* to take the 
liberty of adding their names below :)

Anriette

1. Adam Peake - ajp at glocom.ac.jp

2. Ian Peter - ian.peter at ianpeter.com

3. Paul Wilson -	pwilson at apnic.net

4. Erick Iriarte Ahon + 4 - aia at amauta.rcp.net.pe

5. Jeanette Hofmann - jeanette at wzb.eu

6. Gurumurthy, Anita and Parminder from ITforChange - 
guru at itforchange.net

7. Robert Guerra - lists at privaterra.info

8. Mark Bench, Julien Pain + Ronald Koven from World 
Press Freedom Committee - kovenronald at aol.com

9. Schombe Baudouin - cafec3m at yahoo.fr

10. Jeremy Malcolm - Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au

11. Tapani Tarvainen - tapani.tarvainen at effi.org

12. William Drake - drake at hei.unige.ch

13. Anriette Esterhuysen - APC

14. Willie Currie - APC

15. Karen Banks - APC



------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From anriette at apc.org  Mon Oct  8 07:13:24 2007
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:13:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <470A2731.8834.593BE80@anriette.apc.org>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <C2715E2D13406243A39281EB@as-paul-l-2.local>, <470A2731.8834.593BE80@anriette.apc.org>
Message-ID: <470A2CF4.30819.5AA40D4@anriette.apc.org>

Adding Katitza's name which came in over the weekend. 
For everyone's information, we are compiling the list so as 
to invite people to an APC public event on 'equitable 
access to infrastructure' that will take place on the 10th in 
Rio.

Anriette
 
1. Adam Peake - ajp at glocom.ac.jp

2. Ian Peter - ian.peter at ianpeter.com
 
3. Paul Wilson -	pwilson at apnic.net
 
4. Erick Iriarte Ahon + 4 - aia at amauta.rcp.net.pe
 
5. Jeanette Hofmann - jeanette at wzb.eu
 
6. Gurumurthy, Anita and Parminder from ITforChange - 
guru at itforchange.net
 
7. Robert Guerra - lists at privaterra.info
 
8. Mark Bench, Julien Pain + Ronald Koven from World 
 Press Freedom Committee - kovenronald at aol.com
 
9. Baudouin Schombe - cafec3m at yahoo.fr
 
10. Jeremy Malcolm - Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au
 
11. Tapani Tarvainen - tapani.tarvainen at effi.org
 
12. William Drake - drake at hei.unige.ch
 
13. Anriette Esterhuysen - APC
 
14. Willie Currie - APC
 
15. Karen Banks - APC

16. Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - katitza at datos-
personales.org



------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Mon Oct  8 08:45:43 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:45:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
Message-ID: <s709ee5c.094@gwia203.syr.edu>

Anriette,

I will be there, though not sure if in time for an event on the
10th...

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> anriette at apc.org 10/8/2007 7:13 AM >>>
Adding Katitza's name which came in over the weekend. 
For everyone's information, we are compiling the list so as 
to invite people to an APC public event on 'equitable 
access to infrastructure' that will take place on the 10th in 
Rio.

Anriette
 
1. Adam Peake - ajp at glocom.ac.jp 

2. Ian Peter - ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
 
3. Paul Wilson -	pwilson at apnic.net 
 
4. Erick Iriarte Ahon + 4 - aia at amauta.rcp.net.pe 
 
5. Jeanette Hofmann - jeanette at wzb.eu 
 
6. Gurumurthy, Anita and Parminder from ITforChange - 
guru at itforchange.net 
 
7. Robert Guerra - lists at privaterra.info 
 
8. Mark Bench, Julien Pain + Ronald Koven from World 
 Press Freedom Committee - kovenronald at aol.com 
 
9. Baudouin Schombe - cafec3m at yahoo.fr 
 
10. Jeremy Malcolm - Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au 
 
11. Tapani Tarvainen - tapani.tarvainen at effi.org 
 
12. William Drake - drake at hei.unige.ch 
 
13. Anriette Esterhuysen - APC
 
14. Willie Currie - APC
 
15. Karen Banks - APC

16. Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - katitza at datos-
personales.org



------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org 
http://www.apc.org 
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Oct  8 10:51:20 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:51:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <4703A7D6.12856.ABA01E7@anriette.apc.org>
References: <a6bc8cb30709190212k389b71d7r8ab6bf569df3a82f@mail.gmail.com>, <ecb172de0710030500r6236b0b9w84a00d9f7e0f54a5@mail.gmail.com>, <20071003120932.GA18765@nic.fr> <4703A7D6.12856.ABA01E7@anriette.apc.org>
Message-ID: <470A43E8.9060903@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Hi Anriette,

Anriette Esterhuysen schrieb:
> I volunteer to compile the list.  People can let me know off list if
> they are going to be in Rio.
You can just start with the APC hotel booking list, right?

I am there, too. :-)

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 vb at bertola.eu  Mon Oct  8 10:49:59 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:49:59 +0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu>

Seiiti Arata ha scritto:
> Hi Robert, should we consider IGF as a public event and thus the listing 
> disclosure being no privacy breach? This is an interesting point.

At least in Europe, any disclosure is a privacy breach unless authorized 
in advance by the individual. The fact that the event is public doesn't 
matter. (Of course after the event you can compile a list of people you 
saw there, but that's different from disclosing an official list.)
I would suggest that any list of participants should be opt-in only.
-- 
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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Oct  8 11:06:12 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 00:06:12 +0900
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
 <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@[192.168.0.2]>

I don't really understand why this has come up now, it's been the 
practice to publish a participants list through WSIS, WGIG 
consultations, and all IGF consultations and meeting in Athens.

But. The registration page says (and think has always said, I believe 
the secretariat took over a registration system used for WSIS)

"The IGF Secretariat will publish details of participants contained 
in mandatory fields marked with * on the IGF website. All other 
information will be held in strict confidence."

Would be nice to know if this is a breach. Whether opt in is 
required.  Or if the process is covered by some UN exemption? (are 
the transcripts a privacy breach, no one asks.)

Adam




>Seiiti Arata ha scritto:
>>Hi Robert, should we consider IGF as a public event and thus the 
>>listing disclosure being no privacy breach? This is an interesting 
>>point.
>
>At least in Europe, any disclosure is a privacy breach unless 
>authorized in advance by the individual. The fact that the event is 
>public doesn't matter. (Of course after the event you can compile a 
>list of people you saw there, but that's different from disclosing 
>an official list.)
>I would suggest that any list of participants should be opt-in only.
>--
>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 seiiti.lists at googlemail.com  Mon Oct  8 10:40:11 2007
From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 16:40:11 +0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
Message-ID: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robert, should we consider IGF as a public event and thus the listing
disclosure being no privacy breach? This is an interesting point.

Seiiti

On 10/3/07, Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info> wrote:
>
> Adam:
>
> Is there an option on the IGF registration form where people - choose
> in advance - weather they wish to be listed in a pubic list of
> participants ? Having people opt-in would be the preferable privacy
> option..
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Robert
> ---
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
> Managing Director, Privaterra
> Tel +1 416 893 0377
>
>
>
> On 3-Oct-07, at 8:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> > at some point a list of participant names will be published on the
> > IGF website (I will ask when we can expect the list). The
> > registration form says name, delegation (affiliation) title (mr.
> > ms.), and category (stakeholder group) will be listed.
> >
> > <http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php> (see bottom of the page.)
> >
> > same for Athens and almost all IGF consultations and WSIS (prepcoms
> > and summits.)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > At 8:30 AM -0400 10/3/07, Robert Guerra wrote:
> >> Anriette:
> >>
> >> I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of
> >> the Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice
> >> session on --
> >>
> >> ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch
> >>
> >> As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy
> >> reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at
> >> the event in Athens last year as well.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Robert
> >> ---
> >> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
> >> Managing Director, Privaterra
> >> Tel +1 416 893 0377
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear governance caucus members
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
> >>> Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
> >>>
> >>> Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
> >>> list of participants available yet?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/3ff737b4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/3ff737b4/attachment.txt>

From lists at privaterra.info  Mon Oct  8 13:10:50 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 15:10:50 -0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4BC007B3-CF5B-4A58-B234-C4AD38B6615F@privaterra.info>

Seiiti:

Depends on your school of thought.

My recommendation would be for an attendee list to  - by default not  
list people, and only list those who have given their consent. Ie.  
opt-in

An alternative would be to include everyone by default, and have in  
the registration form (or upon registration in Rio) the option of not  
being listed in a public listing.

Even for public events - people might be fine with attending, but  
might not want to share their contact information



regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 8-Oct-07, at 12:40 PM, Seiiti Arata wrote:

> Hi Robert, should we consider IGF as a public event and thus the  
> listing disclosure being no privacy breach? This is an interesting  
> point.
>
> Seiiti
>
> On 10/3/07, Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info> wrote:
> Adam:
>
> Is there an option on the IGF registration form where people - choose
> in advance - weather they wish to be listed in a pubic list of
> participants ? Having people opt-in would be the preferable privacy
> option..
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Robert
> ---
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
> Managing Director, Privaterra
> Tel +1 416 893 0377
>
>
>
> On 3-Oct-07, at 8:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
> > at some point a list of participant names will be published on the
> > IGF website (I will ask when we can expect the list). The
> > registration form says name, delegation (affiliation) title (mr.
> > ms.), and category (stakeholder group) will be listed.
> >
> > <http://intgovforum.org/register/index.php> (see bottom of the  
> page.)
> >
> > same for Athens and almost all IGF consultations and WSIS (prepcoms
> > and summits.)
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> >
> > At 8:30 AM -0400 10/3/07, Robert Guerra wrote:
> >> Anriette:
> >>
> >> I'll be attending the IGF in Rio this coming Nov. I'll be part of
> >> the Diplo delegation, where i'm co-organizing a best practice
> >> session on --
> >>
> >> ICT and Security Challenges - A selection of Case studies
> >> http://tinyurl.com/2yyxch
> >>
> >> As for a larger list of attendees - well, I think that for privacy
> >> reasons the list isn't made public. I believe that was the case at
> >> the event in Athens last year as well.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >>
> >> Robert
> >> ---
> >> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
> >> Managing Director, Privaterra
> >> Tel +1 416 893 0377
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 3-Oct-07, at 7:15 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dear governance caucus members
> >>>
> >>> Has anyone compiled a list of who they know will be in
> >>> Rio? From this caucus, but also others?
> >>>
> >>> Adam and others working with the advisory group.. is a
> >>> list of participants available yet?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> Anriette
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/5db28bc5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/5db28bc5/attachment.txt>

From seiiti.lists at googlemail.com  Mon Oct  8 16:22:56 2007
From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata)
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 22:22:56 +0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@192.168.0.2>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@192.168.0.2>
Message-ID: <ecd95cb50710081322l3e076734m541fe76196b8111d@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Adam,

QUOTE
On 10/8/07, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> I don't really understand why this has come up now,

UNQUOTE

As it happens that I am working in the Secretariat, I will be happy to pass
ahead any constructive suggestion that we may have towards improving the
system - and Robert's comment called my attention as I am personally
interested in the privacy field as a lawyer.

QUOTE
On 10/8/07, Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info> wrote:Seiiti:
Depends on your school of thought.

My recommendation would be for an attendee list to  - by default not list
people, and only list those who have given their consent. Ie. opt-in
UNQUOTE


Hi Robert - I guess I understand your comment. Is opt-in a statutory legal
obligation? Or more like an industry best practice as defined by
self-regulation and other non-binding recommendations?

My initial comment was based on the idea of the (difficult) separation
between public and private spheres. All which is done in public would have
lesser expectation for privacy, such as an IGF participation, as Adam points
out.

Just following up Adam's point, I see "higher justification" for transcripts
and audio recordings: they are made available to meet a public need and
interest. Which is a valid one, because those who cannot attend physically
have legitimate right to know what happened. And also those who did
participate may want to have some records for their organization, etc. In
Brazil there are legal cases where "paparazzi" material was held as
violation of privacy, even when related to activity done in public places,
because there was no legitimate interest from the public (curiosity not
being a legitimate one...).

But to get the registration list information I see less justifiers, and thus
the balance for privacy would point to a non-disclosure. It's an interesting
discussion.

I agree with Robert that one can also use the school of thought of personal
control. If one does not want to disclose info, this expectation should be
an option for him.

The question is, which of the many different possibilities would be best
applicable.

Please note that I am writing "as an individual" and not as a Secretariat
member. But I will be pleased to facilitate implementation of good
practices.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/ffa3ac0c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071008/ffa3ac0c/attachment.txt>

From vb at bertola.eu  Mon Oct  8 18:05:50 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:05:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
Message-ID: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>

All,

this is to report about the status of the organizing process for the 
"Fulfilling the mandate of the IGF" workshop that the IGC is 
co-sponsoring, about the mandate of the IGF itself, which is now 
scheduled for the morning of the last day.

The coordinators took care of the process, with the support of a few 
people to double-check our ideas and help in making contacts and other 
practical issues.

We think that a balanced slate of panelists would include two 
governmental people - one from the North and one from the South -, two 
from the business/technical community, and two from civil society; plus 
one of us as chair.

For what regards governments, we could have Everton Lucero from Brazil, 
and we are still waiting for confirmation about the Northern gov rep. 
For the private sector, we will have someone from ISOC - either Lynn St. 
Amour or Matthew Shears - and Ayesha Hassan from ICC (still to be 
finally confirmed). For civil society, after a lot of discussion, we 
suggest Parminder and Karen Banks. To chair the meeting, we'd like to 
have Bill Drake, as the person who has been proposing and pushing this 
workshop since the beginning.

Of course the civil society slate could be much bigger, if only we 
included all the people who cared about the mandate of the IGF or who 
had proposals about it. My take is that we should try to limit the 
presentations by the panelists, and ensure that at least half of the 
available time is devoted to open discussion with the audience. In any 
case, suggestions are welcome, and we might add one more civil society 
speaker, though I see it difficult to alter the balance among the 
stakeholder groups.

Comments are welcome - we are supposed to submit the final list by 
Wednesday, but we could have a bit more time if necessary.

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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Oct  8 19:18:48 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:18:48 +0800
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>
References: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 12:05:50AM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> For the private sector, we will have someone from ISOC - either Lynn St. 
> Amour or Matthew Shears - and Ayesha Hassan from ICC (still to be 
> finally confirmed).

As of last week, Matthew Shears is no longer the ISOC Director of Public 
Policy.  Personally I suggest you ask Sebastian Bellagamba who is the
Regional Manager for Latin America, whom I spoke with last night, and who 
struck me as having a strong and perhaps more balanced interest in this
area.
 
--
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 ca at rits.org.br  Mon Oct  8 19:58:04 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:58:04 -0300
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>
References: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu> <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <470AC40C.1040503@rits.org.br>

Good suggestion, Jeremy.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 12:05:50AM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> For the private sector, we will have someone from ISOC - either Lynn St. 
>> Amour or Matthew Shears - and Ayesha Hassan from ICC (still to be 
>> finally confirmed).
> 
> As of last week, Matthew Shears is no longer the ISOC Director of Public 
> Policy.  Personally I suggest you ask Sebastian Bellagamba who is the
> Regional Manager for Latin America, whom I spoke with last night, and who 
> struck me as having a strong and perhaps more balanced interest in this
> area.
>  
> --
> 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 faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe  Mon Oct  8 21:30:45 2007
From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 20:30:45 -0500
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <470AC40C.1040503@rits.org.br>
References: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>
 <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>
 <470AC40C.1040503@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20071009013347.1219BA6D5D@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Yeap..
i support that idea.

Erick

At 06:58 p.m. 08/10/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Good suggestion, Jeremy.
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>
>Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 12:05:50AM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>>For the private sector, we will have someone from ISOC - either 
>>>Lynn St. Amour or Matthew Shears - and Ayesha Hassan from ICC 
>>>(still to be finally confirmed).
>>As of last week, Matthew Shears is no longer the ISOC Director of 
>>Public Policy.  Personally I suggest you ask Sebastian Bellagamba who is the
>>Regional Manager for Latin America, whom I spoke with last night, 
>>and who struck me as having a strong and perhaps more balanced interest in this
>>area.
>>
>>--
>>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From guru at itforchange.net  Mon Oct  8 23:38:52 2007
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 09:08:52 +0530
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <20071009033840.ADAD4A7ADA@smtp2.electricembers.net>

'Any disclosure is a privacy breach' - is this the position in all of
Europe? Would sharing the information on the program at Rio (with names of
panelists/speakers) be a privacy violation unless the speakers have
explicitly consented to such info being shared? That would seem untenable.

As Seiti pointed out, a balancing act between disclosure (which is sometimes
another facet of transparency) and breach of 'privacy' may be more apt to a
public space as IGF. For e.g., would a sharing of the list of registered
participants (sharing their contact info is a separate issue) be useful to
participants to plan any common meetings/discussions to further their common
agendas at Rio? 

Guru

-----Original Message-----
From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] 
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 8:20 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Seiiti Arata
Subject: Re: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?

Seiiti Arata ha scritto:
> Hi Robert, should we consider IGF as a public event and thus the 
> listing disclosure being no privacy breach? This is an interesting point.

At least in Europe, any disclosure is a privacy breach unless authorized in
advance by the individual. The fact that the event is public doesn't matter.
(Of course after the event you can compile a list of people you saw there,
but that's different from disclosing an official list.) I would suggest that
any list of participants should be opt-in only.
-- 
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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org  Tue Oct  9 01:45:24 2007
From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:45:24 +0300
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@[192.168.0.2]>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com> <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@[192.168.0.2]>
Message-ID: <20071009054523.GA6173@musti.tarvainen.info>

On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 12:06:12AM +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:

> The registration page says (and think has always said, I believe 
> the secretariat took over a registration system used for WSIS)
> 
> "The IGF Secretariat will publish details of participants contained 
> in mandatory fields marked with * on the IGF website. All other 
> information will be held in strict confidence."

Yes. And that is rather explicit authorization to the publication of
the marked fields, I think. (Note that they do not include contact
information like email address or phone numbers.)

[Vittorio Bertola:]
> >At least in Europe, any disclosure is a privacy breach unless 
> >authorized in advance by the individual.

I would very much like to know what that claim is based on.

I can think of any number of instances where it's perfectly
legal to print in a newspaper the whereabouts of people even 
against their explicit wishes, let alone without asking for
prior permission.

Perhaps you're using "disclosure" in some restricted sense
that isn't obvious from the context.

In any case it certainly legal to organize a conference with
a condition that only those can participate who allow their
participation to be published. That is certainly indicated by
the above-quoted statement in the registration form.

> >The fact that the event is public doesn't matter.

In some points of law it certainly does matter, although
by itself it does not override all other considerations
regarding what may be published.

> >(Of course after
> >the event you can compile a list of people you saw there, but
> >that's different from disclosing an official list.)

Strangely enough, according to Finnish law (which I believe is mostly
based on EU directives here), even compiling such a list yourself
might be illegal (depending on how you'd use it), even when publishing
an official list would be legal (which again depends on...)

> >I would suggest that any list of participants should be opt-in only.

As stated above, I believe the registration form is explicitly opt-in,
even if it bundles opting to participation and allowing publication of
same, and I'm quite certain there's no legal problem in publishing
those *-marked fields of all participants.

It could even be argued that the statement in the registration form
("...will publish...") amounts to a promise, and by failing to publish
the information would be breach of that promise by the secretariat.

But legal issues aside, whether publication is a good idea or not
is another matter.

On one hand, some people might have valid reasons for not having their
participation too public. (Note thought that one really cannot hope
to hide it from governments or indeed anyone who really wants to know.)

On the other hand, the credibility of IGF might be eroded if the
public cannot know who's been there making what (hopefully) amounts to
public policy. I certainly feel queasy about having an UN-sponsored
organization talking about public policy issues under any kind of
secrecy.

I don't have a strong opinion on this yet, but my current feeling is
that the latter argument is heavier and participant lists should be
made public. 

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct  9 04:37:19 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 17:37:19 +0900
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ecd95cb50710081322l3e076734m541fe76196b8111d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>	
 <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@192.168.0.2>
 <ecd95cb50710081322l3e076734m541fe76196b8111d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <p0624080fc330e7e908a9@[192.168.1.131]>

At 10:22 PM +0200 10/8/07, Seiiti Arata wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>QUOTE
>On 10/8/07, Adam Peake <<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>I don't really understand why this has come up now,
>
>UNQUOTE
>
>As it happens that I am working in the 
>Secretariat, I will be happy to pass ahead any 
>constructive suggestion that we may have towards 
>improving the system - and Robert's comment 
>called my attention as I am personally 
>interested in the privacy field as a lawyer.
>
>QUOTE


Seiiti, Hi.  I didn't literally mean to question 
why you were responding (I wrote to the 
secretariat with the question about participation 
lists.) 

I'm interested why Robert and Vittorio think this 
an issue now when it hasn't been a concern for 
the past 4 or 5 years.  It's been the practice to 
publish a participants list through WSIS, WGIG 
consultations, and all IGF consultations and the 
Athens meeting.

Interested to know what could be wrong with providing a list of participants:

<http://www.intgovforum.org/PL_Feb13.html>

GLOCOM	Mr. Adam Peake
The Internet	Mr. Vittorio Bertola
etc

Clear when you register your name and affiliation 
will be listed.  If you speak your name and 
affiliation will be given.  If you contribute a 
document, participate in and online forum send a 
comment by email, your name (and often 
affiliation) will be given. (These are public 
meetings, you can't wear a mask.)

I agree with Tapani's comment:

At 8:45 AM +0300 10/9/07, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>
>On the other hand, the credibility of IGF might be eroded if the
>public cannot know who's been there making what (hopefully) amounts to
>public policy. I certainly feel queasy about having an UN-sponsored
>organization talking about public policy issues under any kind of
>secrecy.
>


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 nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct  9 05:06:38 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue,  9 Oct 2007 11:06:38 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <20071009033840.ADAD4A7ADA@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	(guru@itforchange.net)
References: <20071009033840.ADAD4A7ADA@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20071009090638.C5B6B2202DA@quill.bollow.ch>

"Guru at ITfC" <guru at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 'Any disclosure is a privacy breach' - is this the position in all of
> Europe?

I would suggest that disclosure of person-related information is a
privacy breach if and only if it violates an expectation of privacy.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From KovenRonald at aol.com  Tue Oct  9 05:57:33 2007
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 05:57:33 EDT
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
Message-ID: <d3c.14a1ce84.343caa8d@aol.com>

Dear All --

I wholeheartedly agree with Norbert's take on the privacy issue and hope that 
will be the last word in what has been perhaps the most amusing (a euphemism 
to avoid offense to anyone) discussions in the leadup to IGF II.

Bests, Rony Koven


**************************************
 See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/53714bdd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/53714bdd/attachment.txt>

From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Oct  9 06:14:11 2007
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (Kwasi)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 11:14:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] BBC E-mail: How to make the web go worldwide
Message-ID: <20071009_101411_083677.kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk>

Kwasi saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
should see it.

** Message **
This article is almost a year old but the points raised are still valid. I found it interesting.

** How to make the web go worldwide **
Many nations are being left behind in the global dash to use of the net in business, government and the home.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/technology/6109008.stm >


** BBC Daily E-mail **
Choose the news and sport headlines you want - when you want them, all
in one daily e-mail
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/email >


** Disclaimer **
The BBC is not responsible for the content of this e-mail, and anything written in this e-mail does not necessarily reflect the BBC's views or opinions. Please note that neither the e-mail address nor name of the sender have been verified.

If you do not wish to receive such e-mails in the future or want to know more about the BBC's Email a Friend service, please read our frequently asked questions. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/4162471.stm
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Tue Oct  9 07:36:33 2007
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 13:36:33 +0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <d3c.14a1ce84.343caa8d@aol.com>
References: <d3c.14a1ce84.343caa8d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0710090436n5c95a83crd3c2789a6c6ad062@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps good to remember that there are a few  elements that set us apart
from the other two sectors (business and government). One such is that we
are ALWAYS in favour of transparency/ openness/ access to information/
accountability, whereas the other two are demonstrably only so when
convenient (i.e. not in conflict with any other vested interest).

That being the case, to now want to participate incognito, would make us
loose a bit of our soul.

Having said that - and unless I missed it, has not been mentioned so far -
perhaps there is a need for privacy in some cases: we do know of members of
this caucus and other caucuses that are not as free to come and go and say
with impunity where they have been as the rest of us. Then again, not having
your name on a public list might be little comfort, when agents of the
regimes that they seek to outmanoeuvre are most likely to be present in Rio
and any other future event.

So, to be or not to be ... on a public list

[]s

Rui

On 09/10/2007, KovenRonald at aol.com <KovenRonald at aol.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All --
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with Norbert's take on the privacy issue and hope
> that will be the last word in what has been perhaps the most amusing (a
> euphemism to avoid offense to anyone) discussions in the leadup to IGF II.
>
> Bests, Rony Koven
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's new at http://www.aol.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
>
>


-- 
________________________________________________


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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/a208842b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/a208842b/attachment.txt>

From KovenRonald at aol.com  Tue Oct  9 08:10:10 2007
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 08:10:10 EDT
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
Message-ID: <d08.1dbdca5d.343cc9a2@aol.com>

Dear Rui --

If someone were to put me up against a wall and put a gun to my head, I think 
I would concede that, for the word "amusing," I would find it not 
inappropriate to substitute the word "silly."

I quite understand that there are highly sensitive fora. If this were a 
seminar on, say, democracy in Burma or Belarus, it would be more than 
understandable if there were those who needed to preserve their anonymity.

But, to my knowledge, there is not a single government or other public 
authority that has even begun to suggest that there was something illegitimate about 
WSIS or IGF or about participation in their deliberations, placed under UN 
auspices.

There seems to be a loss of perspective somewhere here, and I think that's 
somehow related metaphorically to a failure of sense of humor. And that once in 
Rio, we should all share a good laugh about this thread.

Bests, Rony Koven


**************************************
 See what's new at 
http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/176bbd7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/176bbd7d/attachment.txt>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct  9 08:21:43 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue,  9 Oct 2007 14:21:43 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0710090436n5c95a83crd3c2789a6c6ad062@mail.gmail.com>
	(correia.rui@gmail.com)
References: <d3c.14a1ce84.343caa8d@aol.com> <ec8caada0710090436n5c95a83crd3c2789a6c6ad062@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071009122143.213742202DA@quill.bollow.ch>

Rui Correia <correia.rui at gmail.com> wrote:

> Having said that - and unless I missed it, has not been mentioned so far -
> perhaps there is a need for privacy in some cases: we do know of members of
> this caucus and other caucuses that are not as free to come and go and say
> with impunity where they have been as the rest of us. Then again, not having
> your name on a public list might be little comfort, when agents of the
> regimes that they seek to outmanoeuvre are most likely to be present in Rio
> and any other future event.
> 
> So, to be or not to be ... on a public list

In view of the fact that fundamental human rights such as freedom of
opinion are not respected in all parts of the world, maybe it would
be worthwhile to explore the idea of countries which have a strong
tradition of supporting these human rights offering pseudonymous
identities to people who have cause to fear persecution in their own
countries for expressing legitimate opinions and viewpoints.

Something like a virtual refugee status.

This kind of governmentally endorsed pseudonym would then entitle to
pseudonymous participation at conferences like the IGF, and it would
also entitle the person with virtual refugee status to some kinds of
assistance from embassies of the country which has granted this.

Dumb idea?

Good idea?

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 guru at itforchange.net  Tue Oct  9 09:33:06 2007
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 19:03:06 +0530
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0710090436n5c95a83crd3c2789a6c6ad062@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071009133244.8BDE3A6C1C@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Thanks Rui for a significant distinction between the prefered processes
within the different sectors - Business has functioned on a professed 'need
to know' principle, by which only the bare minimum required info is shared
both within the organization as well as with the outside world, while many
times, Govts have preferred lack of transparency which supports a lack of
accountability to the citizen/community.
 
Just wanted to share that in India, one of the landmark legislations in its
57 years of independance was the 'Right to Information' act, that was passed
in both the central (federal) and state (provincial) legislatures couple of
years ago. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act
http://righttoinformation.gov.in/ , http://rti.gov.in/)
 
As per this act, any citizen/institution has a right to seek information
with the Govt/public institutions and the concerned office has to
necessarily part with the information sought. For e.g. Govt projects which
involve large spending on procurement of materials and on wages often
involve siphoning of funds through malpractices in such procurements. A
citizen can write and get the details of the 'payments' made to workers on a
project and in many many cases, it was found that payments were made to
people who did not exist or that people were paid lesser than what was
recorded. This act is seen a BIG blow for transparency and accountability in
public services/systems. Slowly more and more people and organizations are
taking recourse to its provisions for enforcing transparency.
 
Govt systems are also called 'public systems' since their dealings as well
as their information and other resources are for the public/community at
large. Businesses are not on the same plane in this matter of need for
disclosure and transparency (which is perhaps one of the key causes of the
Enron saga and its consequences in Sarbanes-Oxley etc) 
 
Of course, CS tends to be more on the extreme of openness and transparency
than otherwise.... (beyond the issue of the right of privacy of an
individual)
 
Guru
 
ps - of course this 'right to information' was not simply bestowed on Indian
citizens by the Govt. It was result of a hard fought struggle by a mass
community based organiztion - "Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghathan"
(http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/india/states/rajasthan
.htm. Also pls read this inspiring story of MKSS work in fighting for
transparency in use of public funds
http://www.indiatogether.org/stories/ncpri.htm) 
 
 


  _____  

From: Rui Correia [mailto:correia.rui at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 5:07 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; KovenRonald at aol.com
Subject: Re: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?


Perhaps good to remember that there are a few  elements that set us apart
from the other two sectors (business and government). One such is that we
are ALWAYS in favour of transparency/ openness/ access to information/
accountability, whereas the other two are demonstrably only so when
convenient (i.e. not in conflict with any other vested interest).

That being the case, to now want to participate incognito, would make us
loose a bit of our soul.

Having said that - and unless I missed it, has not been mentioned so far -
perhaps there is a need for privacy in some cases: we do know of members of
this caucus and other caucuses that are not as free to come and go and say
with impunity where they have been as the rest of us. Then again, not having
your name on a public list might be little comfort, when agents of the
regimes that they seek to outmanoeuvre are most likely to be present in Rio
and any other future event.

So, to be or not to be ... on a public list

[]s

Rui 


On 09/10/2007, KovenRonald at aol.com <KovenRonald at aol.com> wrote: 

Dear All -- 

I wholeheartedly agree with Norbert's take on the privacy issue and hope
that will be the last word in what has been perhaps the most amusing (a
euphemism to avoid offense to anyone) discussions in the leadup to IGF II.

Bests, Rony Koven


**************************************
See what's new at http://www.aol.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
<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> 

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
<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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/76cc0487/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/76cc0487/attachment.txt>

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Tue Oct  9 14:31:11 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 20:31:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Update on the GAID Steering Committeemeeting (NY, 19 September 2007)
In-Reply-To: <200709141842.l8EIgw5W007125@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <200710091830.l99IURIK017460@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Before the official summary of the GAID Steering Committee (19 September
2007) meeting is released by the GAID Secretariat, find below some
preliminary information on the progress made during the discussion. 

 

Communities of Expertise

The Steering took a more flexible approach than proposed by the GAID
Secretariat, and only discontinued one CoE which already had unilaterally
terminated its activities.

 

All other CoEs are continued, and members of those CoEs not active enough
will be contacted by the GAID Secretariat; those CoEs will be looked at and
supported for better progress. 

 

Connect Africa

Dr Hamadoun Touré, ITU SG, gave an update on the organisation of the Summit
‘Connect Africa’ (Kigali, Rwanda, 29-30 October 2007), organised by the ITU,
the African Union, the World Bank and GAID. This meeting is planned to be
done in a result oriented nature, with the support of the presence of the
ITU SG and a number of Heads of States in Africa. 

 

GAID Business Plan for 2008

Comments made on the CS Plenary List were forwarded to the Steering
Committee. The two additional proposed focus themes (Connectivity and Access
and Financing for Development). On FfD, the main comment focused on how GAID
can have a specific value in the Follow up Conference on FfD to review the
implementation of Monterrey Consensus (Doha, 2008) and to the UNGA High
Level Segment on Financing for Development (New York, 23-24 October 2007).
The need to consider not only innovative ways, but also traditional and
additional ways of financing mechanisms for ICT4D was also stressed, as well
as the need for both quantity and quality of aid.

 

The Flagship Partnership Initiative ‘Open training platform’ proposed by
UNESCO was supported by the Steering Committee. See proposal paper attached.


 

An additional idea discussed was that Switzerland expressed the wish to act
to connect all schools free. ITU expressed the interest to take as one of
its operational points so that a focal point will be set up on that at the
ITU.

 

Budget

The Steering Committee reiterated its call for contribution to the GAID
budget to all members of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee (except
civil society). There was an agreement that fundraising strategies should be
linked with GAID specific activities and that all contribution made should
be published. 

 

Renewal of GAID structures membership

It was agreed that more consultation was needed within the various
stakeholders groups in the process of renewing the membership of the
Steering Committee and the Strategy Council. Therefore the deadlines for the
nominations and appointment processes are as follows:

 


 

GAID Steering Committee

GAID Strategy Council


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

 

Next GAID meetings

The Steering Committee supported the invitation by the Government of
Malaysia to host the next GAID Strategy Council and Global Forum meeting in
May 2008, in conjunction with the World Congress on Information Technology
(18-22 May 2008). The dates of the Steering Committee meeting will be
confirmed soon, even though it was recognised that there is a risk of
conflicting with some ALF meetings in Geneva.

 

 

We will of course forward you any documentation coming from GAID in this
regard.

Feel free to get back to us for any other question.

 

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:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

  _____  

De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la
part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam
Envoyé : vendredi, 14. septembre 2007 19:44
À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for the next GAID Steering
Committeemeeting (NY, 19 September 2007)
Importance : Haute

 

Dear all, 

 

This is to remind you the up-coming GAID Steering Committee meeting taking
place in New York on 19 September 2007. As you know, Renate will participate
in this Steering Committee meeting, and we would be happy to forward your
view and feedback on some of the issues to be discussed, in particular:

- New focus themes of GAID to be included in the 2008 GAID Business Plan
(Connectivity and Financing for Development);

- Preparations for the GAID Strategy Council and Global Forum in 2008;

- Updates on the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee membership
renewal;

- Up dates on the GAID outreach and media strategy.

 

 

Business plan of GAID in 2008:

Proposed focus on Connectivity and access and Financing for ICT4D

 

 

The current proposal of the GAID Business Plan for 2008 is mainly to update
the 2007 Business Plan. Among the noticeable changes, it is proposed to add,
in addition to the existing focuses on Education, Health, Entrepreneurship
and Governance, a focus on:

 

- Connectivity and Access: this follows the agreement at the Santa Clara
meeting (February 2008) to have a stronger focus on Connectivity (in
particular in Africa). The Steering Committee will therefore discuss how
GAID should develop its activities in this area. (Fyi, the draft text to be
added in the 2008 Business Plan reads as follows: “It was decided at the
February 2007 meeting of the Steering Committee in Santa Clara, that, in
2008, significant attention will be paid to the topics of connectivity and
access, with special consideration given to Africa, with the intention of
taking a global view of connectivity issues in developing regions in the
following period”). 

 

- Innovative mechanisms for financing for ICT for Development: in the
context of the 5-year review of the UN Monterrey Conference on Financing for
Development, to be held in Doha (August 2008), such a GAID focus would help
to feed into the preparations of the Doha Review Conference. (Fyi, the draft
text to be added in the 2008 Business Plan reads as follows: “Specifically,
GAID could make an important contribution in the area of innovative
mechanisms of financing, including microfinance. Members may note that in
August 2008, a major conference – a five-year review of the Monterrey
Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) – will be held in Doha, Qatar.
Innovative mechanisms of financing will be one of the important issues on
the agenda, as significant initiatives in this area have been taken by
several countries as well as by other stakeholders. Some of these
initiatives also pertain to innovative financing mechanisms for ICT for
development. This issue will be a significant theme at the 2008 session of
the Strategy Council. The outcomes of these deliberations will be fed into
the preparations for the Doha review conference on FfD as a contribution of
GAID”)

 

We would be happy to have some feedback from you on those two proposals,
based on the proposed inclusions to be included in the 2008 Business Plan.

 

 

Next Strategy Council and GAID Global Forum meeting (May 2008)

 

 

It is proposed that the next Strategy Council and Steering Committee meeting
will be held in Kuala Lumpur in May 2008, following an offer by the
Government of Malaysia. This would take place in conjunction with the World
Congress on Information Technology (WCIT).

 

Find attached the preliminary concept paper outlining the proposed format
and content of the two meetings. It was proposed in Santa Clara that the 2nd
GAID Global Forum in 2008 would focus on the issue of Connectivity.

 

We will of course stress the need to find financial support for a number of
grassroots NGO representatives to join these meetings. We will also call for
a needed coordination with the CSTD Secretariat and the Secretariats of
international organisations involved in WSIS implementation, to avoid
conflicting dates with the IS week in Geneva! 

 

Please send us some comments and feedback that could be forwarded to the
Steering Committee meetings.

 

 

Renewal of GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee membership:

Postponement of the deadlines for new nominations

 

 

It seems that the various categories of stakeholder had difficulties to
reply to the GAID Secretariat summer call for candidates. Therefore, it is
currently proposed that the deadlines for nominations and consultations
within stakeholders’ groups be extended until 30 November 2007.

 

This would give CS constituencies a chance to engage in a timely
self-selection process between now and 30 November. The new membership of
both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council would be announced by
the UN SG in December this year and would enter in function in April 2008
(before the May 2008 proposed meetings).

 

Any comment on that?

 

Let me remind you here that the deadline for current members of the Strategy
Council to announce their interest to serve in the Council is 1 October
2007.

 

 

Progress Report:

Review the progress of Flagship Partnership Initiatives and Communities of
Expertise

 

 

The Steering Committee will consider looking at the work achieved by the
various GAID Communities of Expertise, and see whether some inactive CoEs
should be disconnected from GAID.

 

The GAID Steering Committee might at this stage consider only discontinuing
those CoEs having announced to the GAID Secretariat that they are not
willing or not able to continue their engagement.

 

 

GAID Media Strategy and Outreach

 

 

Find attached also a draft note on GAID outreach activities. 

We did not yet consider it, but would also be interested in getting your
feedback in this regard.

 

 

 

Feel free to ask us any question in this regard.

Attached documents:

            - Draft Agenda of the Steering Committee meeting.

            - Preliminary concept paper on the proposed next GAID Strategy
Council and Global Forum.

            - Draft note on GAID outreach activities

 

Sorry for the rather long message


 

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:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/8461fa6b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071009/8461fa6b/attachment.txt>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Oct 10 01:36:43 2007
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:06:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: [Gov 89]  Update on the GAID Steering Committeemeeting (NY,19 September 2007)
In-Reply-To: <200710091830.l99IURIK017460@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <20071010054013.1037AA6C67@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Thanks Philippe, I see some useful progress in the following text.

 

>GAID Business Plan for 2008

>Comments made on the CS Plenary List were forwarded to the Steering
Committee. The two additional proposed focus themes (Connectivity and Access
and Financing >for Development). On FfD, the main comment focused on how
GAID can have a specific value in the Follow up Conference on FfD to review
the implementation of >Monterrey Consensus (Doha, 2008) and to the UNGA High
Level Segment on Financing for Development (New York, 23-24 October 2007).
The need to consider not >only innovative ways, but also traditional and
additional ways of financing mechanisms for ICT4D was also stressed, as well
as the need for both quantity and quality of >aid.

 

The addition of ‘traditional’ ways of funding – which stands for public
funding – in addition to ‘innovative’ ways – which mostly are about private
sector funding (though there is this important but under-explored area of
community funding and ownership, an area in which some civil society groups,
including my organization is working) is an important gain. 

 

I think we are seeing some shifts in the ‘dominant’ ICTD paradigm. 

 

This shift is also seen in how ICT access has begun to be seen as a public
good, and public infrastructure. There is already a flagship project under
GAID about free connectivity to schools, now the Swiss government seems to
re-emphasize this issue, and ITU is taking this idea under its wing. 

 

>An additional idea discussed was that Switzerland expressed the wish to act
to connect all schools free. ITU expressed the interest to take as one of
its operational >points so that a focal point will be set up on that at the
ITU.

 

It is important to note the far-reaching significance of such assertions,
and early policy directions. ICT infrastructure has hitherto been pushed in
developing countries either as a pre-dominantly business and commercial
infrastructure, and even if to be used for development, revenue models and
financial sustainability have been the first and foremost principle of every
ICTD project, distorting all other development objectives. This thinking is
now making some retreat, with the understanding that (1) ICTs are even more
importantly a social infrastructure and (2) they have such fundamental role
in many basic and valued social processes that their provision as  public
goods/ public infrastructure is something that policies should give serious
attention to. 

 

If schools/ students should have free Internet access, there is hardly much
of a conceptual jump to communities needing free Internet access for their
basic knowledge requirements, as well as access to and participation in
society’s governance, education, health, livelihood and all other systems.
So, well, we are making progress :-). Not being at a school cannot be a
disqualification for all these basic needs, entitlements and rights – sooner
or later we all will see the absurdity of this notion. 

 

And good that civil society is explicitly excluded from ‘financial
contribution norms’, which acknowledges the CS advocacy on this issue.

 

>The Steering Committee reiterated its call for contribution to the GAID
budget to all members of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee (except
civil society).

 

UNESCO’s initiative ‘open training platform’ is also an useful addition, as
promoting institutional forms of sharing knowledge on non-commercial open
basis.  

 

Parminder 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

 <http://www.itforchange.net/> www.ITforChange.net 

  _____  

From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf
Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 12:01 AM
To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: gov at wsis-gov.org
Subject: [Gov 89] Update on the GAID Steering Committeemeeting (NY,19
September 2007)

 

Dear all, 

 

Before the official summary of the GAID Steering Committee (19 September
2007) meeting is released by the GAID Secretariat, find below some
preliminary information on the progress made during the discussion. 

 

Communities of Expertise

The Steering took a more flexible approach than proposed by the GAID
Secretariat, and only discontinued one CoE which already had unilaterally
terminated its activities.

 

All other CoEs are continued, and members of those CoEs not active enough
will be contacted by the GAID Secretariat; those CoEs will be looked at and
supported for better progress. 

 

Connect Africa

Dr Hamadoun Touré, ITU SG, gave an update on the organisation of the Summit
‘Connect Africa’ (Kigali, Rwanda, 29-30 October 2007), organised by the ITU,
the African Union, the World Bank and GAID. This meeting is planned to be
done in a result oriented nature, with the support of the presence of the
ITU SG and a number of Heads of States in Africa. 

 

GAID Business Plan for 2008

Comments made on the CS Plenary List were forwarded to the Steering
Committee. The two additional proposed focus themes (Connectivity and Access
and Financing for Development). On FfD, the main comment focused on how GAID
can have a specific value in the Follow up Conference on FfD to review the
implementation of Monterrey Consensus (Doha, 2008) and to the UNGA High
Level Segment on Financing for Development (New York, 23-24 October 2007).
The need to consider not only innovative ways, but also traditional and
additional ways of financing mechanisms for ICT4D was also stressed, as well
as the need for both quantity and quality of aid.

 

The Flagship Partnership Initiative ‘Open training platform’ proposed by
UNESCO was supported by the Steering Committee. See proposal paper attached.


 

An additional idea discussed was that Switzerland expressed the wish to act
to connect all schools free. ITU expressed the interest to take as one of
its operational points so that a focal point will be set up on that at the
ITU.

 

Budget

The Steering Committee reiterated its call for contribution to the GAID
budget to all members of the Strategy Council and Steering Committee (except
civil society). There was an agreement that fundraising strategies should be
linked with GAID specific activities and that all contribution made should
be published. 

 

Renewal of GAID structures membership

It was agreed that more consultation was needed within the various
stakeholders groups in the process of renewing the membership of the
Steering Committee and the Strategy Council. Therefore the deadlines for the
nominations and appointment processes are as follows:

 


 

GAID Steering Committee

GAID Strategy Council


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

 

Next GAID meetings

The Steering Committee supported the invitation by the Government of
Malaysia to host the next GAID Strategy Council and Global Forum meeting in
May 2008, in conjunction with the World Congress on Information Technology
(18-22 May 2008). The dates of the Steering Committee meeting will be
confirmed soon, even though it was recognised that there is a risk of
conflicting with some ALF meetings in Geneva.

 

 

We will of course forward you any documentation coming from GAID in this
regard.

Feel free to get back to us for any other question.

 

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:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

  _____  

De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la
part de CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam
Envoyé : vendredi, 14. septembre 2007 19:44
À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for the next GAID Steering
Committeemeeting (NY, 19 September 2007)
Importance : Haute

 

Dear all, 

 

This is to remind you the up-coming GAID Steering Committee meeting taking
place in New York on 19 September 2007. As you know, Renate will participate
in this Steering Committee meeting, and we would be happy to forward your
view and feedback on some of the issues to be discussed, in particular:

- New focus themes of GAID to be included in the 2008 GAID Business Plan
(Connectivity and Financing for Development);

- Preparations for the GAID Strategy Council and Global Forum in 2008;

- Updates on the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee membership
renewal;

- Up dates on the GAID outreach and media strategy.

 

 

Business plan of GAID in 2008:

Proposed focus on Connectivity and access and Financing for ICT4D

 

 

The current proposal of the GAID Business Plan for 2008 is mainly to update
the 2007 Business Plan. Among the noticeable changes, it is proposed to add,
in addition to the existing focuses on Education, Health, Entrepreneurship
and Governance, a focus on:

 

- Connectivity and Access: this follows the agreement at the Santa Clara
meeting (February 2008) to have a stronger focus on Connectivity (in
particular in Africa). The Steering Committee will therefore discuss how
GAID should develop its activities in this area. (Fyi, the draft text to be
added in the 2008 Business Plan reads as follows: “It was decided at the
February 2007 meeting of the Steering Committee in Santa Clara, that, in
2008, significant attention will be paid to the topics of connectivity and
access, with special consideration given to Africa, with the intention of
taking a global view of connectivity issues in developing regions in the
following period”). 

 

- Innovative mechanisms for financing for ICT for Development: in the
context of the 5-year review of the UN Monterrey Conference on Financing for
Development, to be held in Doha (August 2008), such a GAID focus would help
to feed into the preparations of the Doha Review Conference. (Fyi, the draft
text to be added in the 2008 Business Plan reads as follows: “Specifically,
GAID could make an important contribution in the area of innovative
mechanisms of financing, including microfinance. Members may note that in
August 2008, a major conference – a five-year review of the Monterrey
Conference on Financing for Development (FfD) – will be held in Doha, Qatar.
Innovative mechanisms of financing will be one of the important issues on
the agenda, as significant initiatives in this area have been taken by
several countries as well as by other stakeholders. Some of these
initiatives also pertain to innovative financing mechanisms for ICT for
development. This issue will be a significant theme at the 2008 session of
the Strategy Council. The outcomes of these deliberations will be fed into
the preparations for the Doha review conference on FfD as a contribution of
GAID”)

 

We would be happy to have some feedback from you on those two proposals,
based on the proposed inclusions to be included in the 2008 Business Plan.

 

 

Next Strategy Council and GAID Global Forum meeting (May 2008)

 

 

It is proposed that the next Strategy Council and Steering Committee meeting
will be held in Kuala Lumpur in May 2008, following an offer by the
Government of Malaysia. This would take place in conjunction with the World
Congress on Information Technology (WCIT).

 

Find attached the preliminary concept paper outlining the proposed format
and content of the two meetings. It was proposed in Santa Clara that the 2nd
GAID Global Forum in 2008 would focus on the issue of Connectivity.

 

We will of course stress the need to find financial support for a number of
grassroots NGO representatives to join these meetings. We will also call for
a needed coordination with the CSTD Secretariat and the Secretariats of
international organisations involved in WSIS implementation, to avoid
conflicting dates with the IS week in Geneva! 

 

Please send us some comments and feedback that could be forwarded to the
Steering Committee meetings.

 

 

Renewal of GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee membership:

Postponement of the deadlines for new nominations

 

 

It seems that the various categories of stakeholder had difficulties to
reply to the GAID Secretariat summer call for candidates. Therefore, it is
currently proposed that the deadlines for nominations and consultations
within stakeholders’ groups be extended until 30 November 2007.

 

This would give CS constituencies a chance to engage in a timely
self-selection process between now and 30 November. The new membership of
both the Steering Committee and the Strategy Council would be announced by
the UN SG in December this year and would enter in function in April 2008
(before the May 2008 proposed meetings).

 

Any comment on that?

 

Let me remind you here that the deadline for current members of the Strategy
Council to announce their interest to serve in the Council is 1 October
2007.

 

 

Progress Report:

Review the progress of Flagship Partnership Initiatives and Communities of
Expertise

 

 

The Steering Committee will consider looking at the work achieved by the
various GAID Communities of Expertise, and see whether some inactive CoEs
should be disconnected from GAID.

 

The GAID Steering Committee might at this stage consider only discontinuing
those CoEs having announced to the GAID Secretariat that they are not
willing or not able to continue their engagement.

 

 

GAID Media Strategy and Outreach

 

 

Find attached also a draft note on GAID outreach activities. 

We did not yet consider it, but would also be interested in getting your
feedback in this regard.

 

 

 

Feel free to ask us any question in this regard.

Attached documents:

            - Draft Agenda of the Steering Committee meeting.

            - Preliminary concept paper on the proposed next GAID Strategy
Council and Global Forum.

            - Draft note on GAID outreach activities

 

Sorry for the rather long message


 

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:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071010/67fd125f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071010/67fd125f/attachment.txt>

From vb at bertola.eu  Wed Oct 10 04:14:13 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:14:13 +0200
Subject: Privacy was Re: [governance] Who will be in Rio?
In-Reply-To: <p0624080fc330e7e908a9@[192.168.1.131]>
References: <ecd95cb50710080740t3b25c8a4m5fc68a8e579b328f@mail.gmail.com>	 <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> <p06240818c32ff5d36c64@192.168.0.2> <ecd95cb50710081322l3e076734m541fe76196b8111d@mail.gmail.com> <p0624080fc330e7e908a9@[192.168.1.131]>
Message-ID: <470C89D5.20708@bertola.eu>

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> I'm interested why Robert and Vittorio think this an issue now when it 
> hasn't been a concern for the past 4 or 5 years.  It's been the practice 
> to publish a participants list through WSIS, WGIG consultations, and all 
> IGF consultations and the Athens meeting.

I don't think it is "an issue", and I have no real problem with the 
present system, though I think it'd be better to change it and add an 
option for private registration. I just stress the fact that (at least 
if the conference were in Europe) disclosure requires your informed 
consent and possibly an opt-in/opt-out checkbox at registration (even 
ICANN has one, by the way).

Still, there are a number of valid reasons why someone may want not to 
appear in a public list of attendees, especially in a politically 
sensitive context like this. Suppose that your country (or your boss) 
calls for a boycott of the IGF and you decide to ignore it - you might 
want to be there without this getting posted on the Internet and indexed 
by Google. Or suppose that you are an activist and there's a political 
police group that tracks what you do to fill up their folders. There's a 
difference between showing up at certain times and places where you 
might be seen by some others (but perhaps also ask them not to propagate 
the news) and putting your name into an official list which is highly 
visible and gets spread everywhere.

Guru: my privacy is mine, I have to be able to decide for myself about 
whether I want to be trackable or not. There could be transparency 
issues if, for example, I were serving in a public position (in which 
case I should simply consent to the disclosure), but that is not the 
case for most participants. Several people attend in individual capacity.

Tapani:
> In any case it certainly legal to organize a conference with
> a condition that only those can participate who allow their
> participation to be published. That is certainly indicated by
> the above-quoted statement in the registration form.

According to the EU Directive (and your national implementation may 
vary), except for a few exceptions, you have to give unambiguous consent 
to every specific act of processing; your consent to processing may be 
required for you to get the service, but only if the processing is 
commensurate to the purpose for which the information was collected. In 
other words, at least in the Italian implementation of the Directive 
(but AFAIK it's the same everywhere in the EU), you must be able to opt 
out from any processing which is not strictly necessary for the primary 
purpose, which in this case is attending the conference.

For example, it is definitely necessary for your information to be held 
into a database by the organizers, and checked when you show up at the 
door, and it is also necessary to publish that you are a speaker if you 
are a speaker, otherwise how could the conference work? But it is 
debatable whether publishing the list of participants is necessary to 
make the conference work. I myself have no firm opinion on this, though 
I'd tend to say that it's not necessary and so organizers (again, in the 
hypothetical case of them being in Europe) would be required to provide 
you with an opt-in/opt-out choice.

In any case, apart from legal issues, it'd definitely be kind by the 
organizers to do so in any case - I do not see what they are gaining by 
forcing the disclosure of the participation by anyone who does not want 
this to happen, even if it was just one over 1000, and in this I agree 
with Norbert. People who do not expect privacy would just consent to the 
publishing, and people who expect it would just opt out, and everyone 
would be happy.

Anyway, there are more important issues than this one :)

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 vb at bertola.eu  Wed Oct 10 04:20:05 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:20:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>
References: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu> <20071008231848.GA4224@malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <470C8B35.7010400@bertola.eu>

Jeremy Malcolm ha scritto:
> As of last week, Matthew Shears is no longer the ISOC Director of Public 
> Policy.  Personally I suggest you ask Sebastian Bellagamba who is the
> Regional Manager for Latin America, whom I spoke with last night, and who 
> struck me as having a strong and perhaps more balanced interest in this
> area.

Well, we invited ISOC (because they are a player and we'd like to hear 
what they think), so we'll be happy with whomever they want to send - 
but Matthew Shears is on the IGF AG, so he seems particularly suited to 
talk about the IGF mandate.
-- 
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 cafec3m at yahoo.fr  Wed Oct 10 05:12:27 2007
From: cafec3m at yahoo.fr (CAFEC)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 10:12:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>
References: <470AA9BE.6020206@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0710100212r20753ef8iff15bcbd42c107ce@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

It's very good option to gather multistakeholders in this opportunity. So
we  hope to have workshop before IGF RIO 2007 just to collect DRC civil
society view.

And I want also to request towards this group some organisations for
partnership to develop togather some projects in DRC about ICT4D on
different program in grass-roots with some UN systems. the main program will
concern MDG and multimedia community center with UNESCO.

Baudouin

2007/10/8, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>:
>
> All,
>
> this is to report about the status of the organizing process for the
> "Fulfilling the mandate of the IGF" workshop that the IGC is
> co-sponsoring, about the mandate of the IGF itself, which is now
> scheduled for the morning of the last day.
>
> The coordinators took care of the process, with the support of a few
> people to double-check our ideas and help in making contacts and other
> practical issues.
>
> We think that a balanced slate of panelists would include two
> governmental people - one from the North and one from the South -, two
> from the business/technical community, and two from civil society; plus
> one of us as chair.
>
> For what regards governments, we could have Everton Lucero from Brazil,
> and we are still waiting for confirmation about the Northern gov rep.
> For the private sector, we will have someone from ISOC - either Lynn St.
> Amour or Matthew Shears - and Ayesha Hassan from ICC (still to be
> finally confirmed). For civil society, after a lot of discussion, we
> suggest Parminder and Karen Banks. To chair the meeting, we'd like to
> have Bill Drake, as the person who has been proposing and pushing this
> workshop since the beginning.
>
> Of course the civil society slate could be much bigger, if only we
> included all the people who cared about the mandate of the IGF or who
> had proposals about it. My take is that we should try to limit the
> presentations by the panelists, and ensure that at least half of the
> available time is devoted to open discussion with the audience. In any
> case, suggestions are welcome, and we might add one more civil society
> speaker, though I see it difficult to alter the balance among the
> stakeholder groups.
>
> Comments are welcome - we are supposed to submit the final list by
> Wednesday, but we could have a bit more time if necessary.
>
> 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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071010/d68befa5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071010/d68befa5/attachment.txt>

From drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Oct 10 07:35:28 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:35:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Our workshop
In-Reply-To: <470C8B35.7010400@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <C33285A0.DE15%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

On 10/10/07 10:20 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:

> Well, we invited ISOC (because they are a player and we'd like to hear
> what they think), so we'll be happy with whomever they want to send -
> but Matthew Shears is on the IGF AG, so he seems particularly suited to
> talk about the IGF mandate.
 
In addition, he remains ISOC's designated lead on IGF, and we already
invited him, and he's agreed to participate.

Best,

Bill



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Thu Oct 11 06:51:59 2007
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:51:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Please Sign - EDRI Statement And Call For Action On New CoE Rec. Failing To Uphold FoE
Message-ID: <5AF47E6B-0780-4C1C-B08B-89CDD4D4F912@ras.eu.org>

[Message sent to lists related to WSIS and IGF, where CS  
organizations are participating. Please excuse possible duplicates]

Dear all,

I'm forwarding to you this announcement of European Digital Rights  
(EDRI) statement and call for action on a recent Council of Europe  
Recommendation on 'promoting freedom of expression and information in  
the new information and communications environment'.

In this statement, EDRI expresses its serious concerns over this  
Recommendation. According to EDRI, the newly adopted instrument  
promotes opaque "self-regulation" and other soft law instruments  
driven by private interests and implemented through technical  
mechanisms, such as content rating and filtering mechanisms. EDRI  
considers this Recommendation to be damaging and a retrograde step  
for freedom of expression and freedom of the press in the online  
world. EDRI is deeply concerned that such instruments will be used to  
legitimize subtle means of censorship, through privatised censorship  
and measures to protect against so-called harmful content.

As other related instruments are currently in preparation by the  
Council of Europe, EDRI calls for NGOs and groups from all over the  
world to sign up in support of EDRI statement and take further action  
to help avoid the risk of more damages to freedom of expression and  
information in the online world.

We hope your organization or group will consider adding its  
signature, and spread the word to other organizations.

EDRI statement, call for action, and background information: 'New  
Council of Europe Recommendation fails to uphold online freedom of  
expression' (10.10.2007) is available at:
- (HTML) http://www.edri.org/coerec200711
- (PDF) http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI-coerec200711.pdf

Translations into other languages are in progress.

EDRI (an association of 28 members organizations from 17 European  
countries promoting civil rights in the information society) is an  
independent NGO observer to the Council of Europe Group of  
Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS). It  
tried to raise its concerns inside the MC-S-IS group since the  
earliest discussions on the Recommendation draft as well as during  
each meeting of the group where the text has been debated. At the  
latest steps, it has also sent written suggestions for amendments to  
the group. Unfortunately, very few of these amendments have been  
taken into account.

Best,
Meryem Marzouki (EDRI and IRIS - Civil Society Human Rights Caucus co- 
coordinator at WSIS)

--
Meryem Marzouki - EDRI - http://www.edri.org
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
http://www.iris.sgdg.org
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris, France

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Thu Oct 11 06:53:53 2007
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:53:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Appel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E0?= signatures - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9claration?= d'EDRI au sujet d'une Recommandation du CdE porteuse de menaces pour la =?ISO-8859-1?Q?libert=E9?= d'expression
Message-ID: <55E2BF7A-6FF1-416E-8004-653F58A1E922@ras.eu.org>

[Message envoyé à des listes en lien avec le SMSI et le FGI,  
auxquelles participent des organisations de la société civile.  
Veuillez excuser d'éventuelles réceptions multiples]

Chers tous,

Je vous transmets cette annonce de la declaration de la Fédération  
européenne EDRI (European Digital Rights), accompagnée d'un appel à  
signature en soutien, à propos d'une nouvelle Recommandation du  
Conseil de l'Europe sur « la promotion de la liberté d’expression et  
d’information dans le nouvel environnement de l’information et de la  
communication ».

Dans cette déclaration, EDRI exprime ses profondes préoccupations à  
propos de cette Recommandation. Selon EDRI, cet instrument  
nouvellement adopté promeut une « auto-régulation » opaque et  
d'autres instruments de « droit mou » (soft law) favorisés par les  
intérêts privés et mis en oeuvre par des mécanismes techniques,  
notamment de labellisation et filtrage de contenus. EDRI considère  
cette Recommandation préjudiciable et régressive pour la liberté  
d'expression et la liberté de presse dans l'environnement en ligne.  
EDRI s'inquiète sérieusement de la possibilité que de tels  
instruments soient utilisés pour légitimer de subtils modes de  
censure, à travers la censure privée et les mesures de protection  
contre des contenus dits offensants.

Sachant que d'autres textes sont actuellement en préparation par le  
Conseil de l'Europe sur des sujets connexes, EDRI appelle les ONG et  
autres collectifs des pays du Conseil de l'Europe comme ceux d'autres  
régions à apporter leurs signatures en soutien à la déclaration  
d'EDRI, et à mener d'autres actions pour tenter d'éviter le risque de  
préjudices additionnels à la liberté d'expression et d'information en  
ligne.

Nous espérons que votre organisation ou collectif apportera sa  
signature et contribuera à sensibiliser d'autres organisations à  
cette action d'EDRI.

La déclaration d'EDRI, l'appel à signatures et autres actions, ainsi  
que plus d'informations sont disponibles à:
- (HTML) http://www.edri.org/coerec200711
- (PDF) http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI-coerec200711.pdf

Des traductions de la déclaration d'EDRI dans d'autres langues sont  
en cours.

EDRI (ONG fédérant 28 associations de 17 pays européens promouvant  
les droits civils dans la société de l'information) est un  
observateur indépendant du Groupe de spécialistes sur les droits de  
l'homme dans la société de l'information du Conseil de l'Europe (MC-S- 
IS). EDRI a tenté de faire valoir ses préoccupations au sein du  
groupe MC-S-IS depuis les premières discussions sur le projet de  
Recommandation, ainsi qu'au cours de chaque réunion du MC-S-IS où le  
texte a été débattu. Dans les dernières étapes, EDRI a aussi fourni  
au groupe par écrit des suggestions d'amendements. Malheureusement,  
seule une infime partie de ces amendements ont été pris en compte.

Bien cordialement,
Meryem Marzouki (EDRI et IRIS - Co-coordinatrice pendant le SMSI du  
caucus de la société civile pour les droits de l'homme)

--
Meryem Marzouki - EDRI - http://www.edri.org
IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
http://www.iris.sgdg.org
40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris, France____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Thu Oct 11 11:20:46 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:20:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS follow-up and implementation process
In-Reply-To: <2453a1e50710081302y753a9564u297da4bafcb087a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200710111520.l9BFK55M025469@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear Johan and all, 

 

Thanks for highlighting this Summit.

This Summit is actually mainly an ITU event and whose organisation was
almost fully managed by the ITU. Other partners, including the World Bank
and GAID, joined and supported the initiative later in the process. ITU
mainly focused its outreach and invitation efforts to Governments (at the
highest level possible), international organisations, ITU sector members and
business companies, who would be able to finance additional projects in
terms of network infrastructures and access. The meeting will therefore
primarily follow ITU practices. But CS representatives who duly registered
will be provided an access badge, as far as I was confirmed.

 

As regards the format of the 6 sessions scheduled in the Summit
<http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/connect/africa/2007/summit/programme.html> ’s
programme, it seems it will be held on a quite informal way, on the WEF
model, with a number of main speakers and interactions with the audience. I
have no idea of the names of the speakers at this time, but my guess is that
they would mainly come from the ministerial level and from the corporate
sector. Such as all other participants, CS representatives and other
stakeholder will have opportunities to ask for the floor. 

 

More information: 

            • http://www.un-gaid.org/fr/node/718

            • http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/connect/africa/2007/index.html

 

Are there other CS representatives planning to participate in this Summit?
What about the involvement of the ACSIS or other African NGOs?

 

Best, 

 

Philippe 

 

  _____  

De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la
part de Johan Hellström
Envoyé : lundi, 8. octobre 2007 21:03
À : Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space
Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS
followup and implementation process

 

Dear All,
Thank you Phillippe for this post-WSIS update, very timely indeed. I am
about to go to Kigali and the ITU and GAID organised Connect Africa Summit
end of this month. Will there be any organised civil society
involvement/attendance? It is supposed to be an informal process with the
GAID aim to provide "a platform for an open, inclusive, multi-stakeholder
cross-sectoral policy dialogue", still the format of the conference seems to
be something else, ie following a traditional, exclusive high level panel
debate format where most of the issues are already discussed and decided.
Anyone who knows more about this or CS role in this process? 
Best regards, Johan



On 10/4/07, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam <wsis at ngocongo.org> wrote:

[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]

Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of
this message!
_______________________________________

 

Dear all,

 

Some weeks ago, it was asked on the Plenary list to bring some
clarifications on the structures and articulations between the various
post-WSIS institutional processes. Find below and attached some elements of
answers and clarification:

 

-          Power-point presentation on the WSIS implementation and follow up
process: this document is used by Mr. Charles Geiger (Special Advisor to the
UN CSTD and Former WSIS Executive Director) to present the post WSIS
architecture within the UN system (see attached);

 

-          An updated version of the post WSIS chart, together with an
explanatory one-pager, prepared by CONGO (see attached; also available on
line on the CONGO website:
http://www.ngocongo.org/files/chart_on_post_wsis.pdf). 

 

-          I also suggest the reading of the chapter on "WSIS in Review",
from the Global Information Society Watch 2007 Report, which provides
relevant clarification on the matter
(http://www.globaliswatch.org/download). 

 

I hope this can help! Feel free to indicate other resources on this issue.

 

All the best,

 

Ph

Philippe Dam 
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org 
Website: www.ngocongo.org 

 


_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary




 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071011/ca3b8880/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071011/ca3b8880/attachment.txt>

From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Thu Oct 11 11:50:53 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:50:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
Message-ID: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Not sure what this means:
1) separate root server for the Russian / CIS DNS?
2) introduction of cyrillic IDNs?
3) a CIS-wide WAN / TCP-IP network that is not connected to the internet?
4) all three of the above?
5) just bluffing?

Does anybody know more about this?
The text also mentions China's gated internet, but also refers to a
similar thing "in development in the Arab countries". Any info on the latter?

Best, Ralf

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf
Of Louis Pouzin
Sent: October 11, 2007 4:07 AM
To: linguistk at googlegroups.com; gov at wsis-gov.org
Subject: [Gov 93] internet cyrillique en gestation - internet localisation
marching on

Picked on the grapevine.

*Russia will create independent Cyrillic WEB.

Translated from the original Russian article authored by Konstantin
Getmansky at Russia’s premier newspaper web-site at
<http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/

/(Note: A few days after the announcement below by President Putin at
the Security Council meeting of the Russian Federation, further
Russian language press reports appeared stating that the Security
committee within the Russian Duma (parliament) had publicly enodorsed
Putin's initiative)

/*Vladimir Putin
At the latest session of Security Council of the Russian Federation
it’s been declared that by 2015 Russia will become one of the leaders
of the global information space. This matter includes the creation in
Russia of its own web.

Russian analogue of the Internet* will be completely independent from
the traditional World Wide Web (www) and at first stage of the project
is going to include the CIS countries. This information was received
from a governmental source.

*There are several reasons for creation* of an independent network in
Russia.

*Firstly*, there are reasons related to information safety and
security. Today it is a matter of fact that Russian users are
accessing the Internet via channels which are in the control of the US
government. Experts say there is the potential for the US to block
these channels in the hypothetical scenario of an adverse development
in the bilateral relationship between Russia and USA.

*Secondly, at present only the US *is engaged in the process of making
decisions relating to the distribution of domain names amongst all the
countries. Thus in essence the US is operating and supervising all
global Internet traffic.

*Two years ago *in Tunis at the United Nations World Summit of the
Information Society (WSIS) the rights for making decisions relating to
the distribution of domain names between the countries was reviewed
for change but ultimately remained under the US-controlled
organization - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). This occurred against the will of the other countries such as
Russia, India and China.

*At the same *Tunis *summit* the US senator - Republican Norm Kohlman
- declared, that only the US can have a supervisory role over the
Internet. He strongly rejected any idea for transferring any Internet
authority to the United Nations. Further he labeled the United Nations
as absolutely incompetent and corrupt.

*Thirdly, domain names* in the proposed independent Russian network
will use a Cyrillic script. Those proposing this project say it will
help to strengthen the influence of Russia in the CIS countries. They
further say that it will also increase the status of the Russian
language in the countries of Commonwealth territories.

It is not determined yet* what organizations will undertake* the
creation of the Russian web and how much it will cost. Also it is not
clear yet, how the Russian network will interact with the traditional
World Wide Web.

*By the way, *a similar project of an independent computer network
already exists in China and is in development in the Arabic countries.
They have the same motives: safety, creation of an independent cyber
space for their own language communities and the convenience of using
of the Internet for their native language speakers.

Konstantin Getmansky
The address/link of the article:
<http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/>


Reçu de la voix du réseau:
- - -
La Russie va créer une toile cyrillique indépendante
Traduit de l'article original signé par Konstantin Getmansky dans le site
d'un journal important, à: <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/

/(Note: Quelques jours après l'annonce ci-dessous par le président Poutine à
la réunion du Conseil de Sécurité de la Fédération de Russie, d'autres
communiqués de presse ont indiqué que le comité de Sécurité de la Douma
(parlement) de Russie a approuvé publiquement l'initiative de Poutine.)

/*Vladimir Putin
Lors de la dernière session du Conseil de Sécurité de la Fédération de
Russie il a été déclaré qu'en 2015 la Russie sera un des grands de l'espace
global de l'information. Cette affaire inclut la création en Russie de sa
propre Toile.

La version russe de l'Internet sera complètement indépendante du
traditionnel  World Wide Web (www) et pour commencer le projet va inclure
les pays de la CIS. Cette information provient d'une source gouvernementale.

Il y a plusieurs raisons pour créer un réseau indépendant en Russie.

* Tout d'abord, il y a des raisons relevant de la sûreté et de la sécurité
de l'information. Aujourd'hui c'est un fait que les usagers russes accèdent
à l'internet via des canaux qui sont sous le contrôle du gouvernement
américain. Les experts disent qu'il est possible pour les US de bloquer ces
canaux dans l'hypothèse d'un scénario d'une évolution hostile des relations
bilatérales entre Russie et USA.

* Ensuite, actuellement les US sont engagés dans un processus de prise de
décisions relatives à la distribution des noms de domaines entre tous les
pays. Ainsi en fait les US effectuent et supervisent tout le trafic global
de l'internet.

Il y a deux ans à Tunis au Sommet Mondial des Nations Unies sur la Société
de l'information (SMSI) les droits de prises de décisions concernant la
répartition des noms de domaines entre les pays ont été examinés en vue de
changements mais sont restés en fin de compte dans une organisation
contrôlée par les US - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN). Ceci s'est produit contre la volonté d'autres pays tels que la
Russie, l'Inde et la Chine.

Lors du même sommet de Tunis le sénateur républicain Norm Kohlman a déclaré
que seuls les US peuvent avoir un rôle de supervision sur l'internet. Il a
rejeté avec force toute idée de transférer aux Nations Unies une quelconque
autorité de l'internet. En plus, il a qualifié les Nations Unies
d'incompétence et de corruption absolues.

* Troisièmement, les noms de domaine dans la proposition de réseau russe
indépendant utiliseront un script cyrillique. Ceux qui proposent ce projet
disent qu'il aidera à renforcer l'influence de la Russie dans les pays de la
CIS. Ils ajoutent aussi qu'il élèvera le statut de la langue russe dans les
pays des territoires du Commonwealth.

Il n'a pas encore été convenu de quelles organisations auront la charge de
la création de la toile russe and de son coût. De plus les modalités
d'interaction entre le réseau russe et le traditionnel World Wide Web ne
sont pas encore claires.

Au fait, un projet similaire de réseau d'ordinateurs indépendant existe déjà
en Chine et est en cours de développement dans les pays arabes. Ils ont les
mêmes motivations: sûreté, création d'un cyberespace indépendant pour leur
propre communauté linguistique, et la commodité d'utiliser l'internet pour
les personnes parlant leur langue native.

Konstantin Getmansky
Lien sur l'article en russe:
<http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/>


http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/ralf-bendrath-public-key.asc
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Thu Oct 11 13:16:40 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:16:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <470e5a8a.0d38400a.64f9.ffffc495@mx.google.com>

Just quickly, more - tomorrow.

Don't worry about reading such "bombastic" articles in the Russian 
media, inspired by "sources in military uniforms", as the original 
articles said in the summer. I've done some research on that issue, 
and have read the Russian Strategy for development of Information 
Society; of course there's nothing like that there.

veni

At 17:50 10/11/2007  +0200, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
>Not sure what this means:
>1) separate root server for the Russian / CIS DNS?
>2) introduction of cyrillic IDNs?
>3) a CIS-wide WAN / TCP-IP network that is not connected to the internet?
>4) all three of the above?
>5) just bluffing?
>
>Does anybody know more about this?
>The text also mentions China's gated internet, but also refers to a
>similar thing "in development in the Arab countries". Any info on the latter?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 11 14:13:32 2007
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 20:13:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Appel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E0?= signatures - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?D=E9claration?= d'EDRI au sujet d'une Recommandation du CdE porteuse de menaces pour la =?ISO-8859-1?Q?libert=E9?= d'expression
In-Reply-To: <55E2BF7A-6FF1-416E-8004-653F58A1E922@ras.eu.org>
References: <55E2BF7A-6FF1-416E-8004-653F58A1E922@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <A9E32066-2432-493C-AA4B-20B8EADA1569@ras.eu.org>

Bonjour,

La déclaration d'EDRI, l'appel à signatures et autres actions, ainsi  
que plus d'informations sont désormais disponibles en Français à :
http://www.iris.sgdg.org/info-debat/EDRI-coerec200711-fr.html (on  
peut signer à partir de cette page).
Meryem

Le 11 oct. 07 à 12:53, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :

> [Message envoyé à des listes en lien avec le SMSI et le FGI,  
> auxquelles participent des organisations de la société civile.  
> Veuillez excuser d'éventuelles réceptions multiples]
>
> Chers tous,
>
> Je vous transmets cette annonce de la declaration de la Fédération  
> européenne EDRI (European Digital Rights), accompagnée d'un appel à  
> signature en soutien, à propos d'une nouvelle Recommandation du  
> Conseil de l'Europe sur « la promotion de la liberté d’expression  
> et d’information dans le nouvel environnement de l’information et  
> de la communication ».
>
> Dans cette déclaration, EDRI exprime ses profondes préoccupations à  
> propos de cette Recommandation. Selon EDRI, cet instrument  
> nouvellement adopté promeut une « auto-régulation » opaque et  
> d'autres instruments de « droit mou » (soft law) favorisés par les  
> intérêts privés et mis en oeuvre par des mécanismes techniques,  
> notamment de labellisation et filtrage de contenus. EDRI considère  
> cette Recommandation préjudiciable et régressive pour la liberté  
> d'expression et la liberté de presse dans l'environnement en ligne.  
> EDRI s'inquiète sérieusement de la possibilité que de tels  
> instruments soient utilisés pour légitimer de subtils modes de  
> censure, à travers la censure privée et les mesures de protection  
> contre des contenus dits offensants.
>
> Sachant que d'autres textes sont actuellement en préparation par le  
> Conseil de l'Europe sur des sujets connexes, EDRI appelle les ONG  
> et autres collectifs des pays du Conseil de l'Europe comme ceux  
> d'autres régions à apporter leurs signatures en soutien à la  
> déclaration d'EDRI, et à mener d'autres actions pour tenter  
> d'éviter le risque de préjudices additionnels à la liberté  
> d'expression et d'information en ligne.
>
> Nous espérons que votre organisation ou collectif apportera sa  
> signature et contribuera à sensibiliser d'autres organisations à  
> cette action d'EDRI.
>
> La déclaration d'EDRI, l'appel à signatures et autres actions,  
> ainsi que plus d'informations sont disponibles à:
> - (HTML) http://www.edri.org/coerec200711
> - (PDF) http://www.edri.org/files/EDRI-coerec200711.pdf
>
> Des traductions de la déclaration d'EDRI dans d'autres langues sont  
> en cours.
>
> EDRI (ONG fédérant 28 associations de 17 pays européens promouvant  
> les droits civils dans la société de l'information) est un  
> observateur indépendant du Groupe de spécialistes sur les droits de  
> l'homme dans la société de l'information du Conseil de l'Europe (MC- 
> S-IS). EDRI a tenté de faire valoir ses préoccupations au sein du  
> groupe MC-S-IS depuis les premières discussions sur le projet de  
> Recommandation, ainsi qu'au cours de chaque réunion du MC-S-IS où  
> le texte a été débattu. Dans les dernières étapes, EDRI a aussi  
> fourni au groupe par écrit des suggestions d'amendements.  
> Malheureusement, seule une infime partie de ces amendements ont été  
> pris en compte.
>
> Bien cordialement,
> Meryem Marzouki (EDRI et IRIS - Co-coordinatrice pendant le SMSI du  
> caucus de la société civile pour les droits de l'homme)
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - EDRI - http://www.edri.org
> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
> http://www.iris.sgdg.org
> 40 rue de la Justice - 75020 Paris,  
> France____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 11 16:24:30 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:24:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:50:53PM +0200,
 Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote 
 a message of 177 lines which said:

> Not sure what this means:

Noone is sure. The original paper is in russian (which I do not read)
and we cannot be sure of the translation. Not to mention the
seriouness and the veracity of the original article.

> 5) just bluffing?

Probably.
 
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, but also refers to a
> similar thing "in development in the Arab countries". Any info on
> the latter?

See above.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 11 17:29:23 2007
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:29:23 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS
 follow-up and implementation process
In-Reply-To: <200710111520.l9BFK55M025469@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200710111520.l9BFK55M025469@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0710112128540.30328@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Philippe,

thanks for so clearly charting what has become of multi-stakeholderism...

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, 11 Oct 2007, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam wrote:

> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:20:46 +0200
> From: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam <wsis at ngocongo.org>
> Reply-To: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
> To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' <plenary at wsis-cs.org>,
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] General overviews and resources on WSIS
>     	follow-up and implementation process
> 
> [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!
> _______________________________________
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 11 20:08:10 2007
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:08:10 +1000
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
Message-ID: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>

For the interest of those of us who use these social networking services:

<http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/>


I'm personally curious to know how accurate are the claims which are made 
here; but in any case this is a good illustration of possible concerns 
about privacy and the use of information posted on sites.

Paul.


________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
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 veni at veni.com  Thu Oct 11 21:08:31 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:08:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
In-Reply-To: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <470ec990.261e640a.1894.0367@mx.google.com>

Paul,
This should be written with big letters in every Internet-related 
book: there's no real privacy on the Internet. If you write 
something, keep in mind it will be published on the first page of the 
New York Times. So, better be ready. The future is here, today.

veni

At 10:08 10/12/2007  +1000, you wrote:
>For the interest of those of us who use these social networking services:
>
><http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/>
>
>
>I'm personally curious to know how accurate are the claims which are 
>made here; but in any case this is a good illustration of possible 
>concerns about privacy and the use of information posted on sites.
>
>Paul.
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
>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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Thu Oct 11 21:34:48 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 03:34:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
In-Reply-To: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <470ECF38.9030904@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Paul Wilson schrieb:
> For the interest of those of us who use these social networking
> services:
> 
> <http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/>
A good empirical and normative account on privacy and web 2.0 just came
out by Michael Zimmer:
<http://bendrath.blogspot.com/2007/10/netaveillance.html>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From karl at cavebear.com  Thu Oct 11 22:00:05 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:00:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
In-Reply-To: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
Message-ID: <470ED525.8050701@cavebear.com>

Paul Wilson wrote:
> For the interest of those of us who use these social networking services:
> 
> <http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/>

It is very interesting to compare the fears expressed there with the 
report that was made in, I believe 1973, by the US Dept of Health 
Education and Welfare (HEW) on Privacy.

It does seem that what was feared in 1974 has matured into a reality.

For years that report was hard to find, but it is online now:
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm

That HEW report was written when the net was composed of only a few IMPs 
and the kind of data linking that is routine today was only a futuristic 
glimmer.

The authors of that report, as some seem to have done recently, thrown 
up their hands in submission and abandoned hope of privacy.

The report, and its European counterparts, contain reasonable principles 
that, if we were to consider how they might apply in an internet 
context, would be worthwhile.

We should add one more principle: teaching.  We teach children that it 
is dangerous to cross streets without looking or to get into the 
automobiles of unknown people.  Yes, children still do it, but with 
teaching they do it less than they would.

It certainly would make sense if we were to discover some mechanisms to 
help those, mainly younger people, who disclose too much, to be aware of 
the dangers.

One technique that was suggested way back in the 1970's was fuzzing data 
- so that information is not recorded with perfection but rather, is 
stored in ways that lose precision and even erode over time.

		--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  Fri Oct 12 01:55:29 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 22:55:29 -0700
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
In-Reply-To: <470ec990.261e640a.1894.0367@mx.google.com>
References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
 <470ec990.261e640a.1894.0367@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <p06230908c334b2ce8afb@[10.0.1.2]>

Veni,

While I agree that no one should expect that anything they publish on the
Internet should be considered private (in some sense, that's simply not the
point, is it) there is still a completely different privacy issue when it
comes to personal identification data that people use to transact private
business, whether over the Internet or through other pathways that lead to
inclusion in large databases.

This is the real cyber-privacy issue: things like social security numbers,
financial account numbers, drivers license and passport IDs, and even more
mundane info like home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and
especially cross-references between these items.  ID theft is a real
problem, because economic and political dynamics require personal
certification, and most people who are not celebrities of some sort become
vulnerable to systematic harassment from a variety of sources if they can
easily be identified and located by people who hide their own identity or
leverage political authority or the resources of great wealth.  Especially
when those using the information keep that use hidden from the subjects, it
can be a powerful tool for harassment, manipulation and oppression.

The question is who controls information in the Information Society,
because that control constitutes real and often profound power.  Knowledge
is power, and knowledge about an individual is power over that individual.
When knowledge is not symmetrical, it creates a power imbalance, and that
is often a structural problem for societies trying to reach a goal of
broadly collective empowerment.

It is easy to conflate these issues (public expression and personal
identification), but they are really two very different privacy concerns.

And of course, it is true that on social networks these two things may be
conflated by the participants themselves if they are not paying attention
(Karl's point is very pertinent that parents need to teach their children
the cyberspace equivalents of looking both ways before crossing the street
-- this is the big change: there used to be anonymity in a crowd in
physical space, but with databasing and datamining this is no longer the
case online).

Just because public *speech* can now be expected to be *globally and
enduringly* public once it hits the Internet doesn't mean that *personal
information privacy* is a non-issue.  Just the opposite, personal privacy
on the Internet has become a red-hot issue with regard to individual human
rights and civil liberties, because it is now so much easier to abuse the
use of personal data in the age of huge databases and sophisticated data
mining.

There remains a gray area of overlap between speech and identification
created by info-comm technology that is the hot zone here.  I don't think
we've figured it out at all, and we still have a lot of work to do to
clarify how to address this new zone.

Dan



At 9:08 PM -0400 10/11/07, veni markovski wrote:
>Paul,
>This should be written with big letters in every Internet-related
>book: there's no real privacy on the Internet. If you write
>something, keep in mind it will be published on the first page of the
>New York Times. So, better be ready. The future is here, today.
>
>veni
>
>At 10:08 10/12/2007  +1000, you wrote:
>>For the interest of those of us who use these social networking services:
>>
>><http://albumoftheday.com/facebook/>
>>
>>
>>I'm personally curious to know how accurate are the claims which are
>>made here; but in any case this is a good illustration of possible
>>concerns about privacy and the use of information posted on sites.
>>
>>Paul.
>>
>>
>>________________________________________________________________________
>>Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
>>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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 12 05:50:03 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 05:50:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Social networking and privacy
In-Reply-To: <p06230908c334b2ce8afb@10.0.1.2>
References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net>
	 <470ec990.261e640a.1894.0367@mx.google.com>
	 <p06230908c334b2ce8afb@10.0.1.2>
Message-ID: <2aa69fe40710120250h727110dcpa0deb528ab6be9c1@mail.gmail.com>

Dan, Karl,
I am sorry about the confusion. What you say, I agree - private data like
SSN, bank accounts, user names and passwords, should not be made public.
Every time it's made public, I feel there's more to be done on the security,
and on the legal framework (e..g in Bulgaria we did a pretty modern Computer
crimes Chapter in the Penal Code, and ISOC-Bulgaria participated actively in
the drafting).

I also agree with Karl that teaching should be in the minds of parents, who
allow their kids to get online.

But we are talking about two different types of things - teaching one how to
protect themselves is different from letting them use social networking
sites. I believe that publishing normal data, that otherwise is known to the
world, is fine. Perhaps we should follow the principle, "the truth, always
the truth, nothing but the truth, but never the whole truth".

Being public also has some positive sides; if you can prove what you've been
doing at every moment /day, week, etc./, even if someone steals your
identity, it may be easier to make your case if you end up in trouble
because of someone else's actions.

Thanks for the positive discussion - it was useful to hear you both!

Veni
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071012/111aaff7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071012/111aaff7/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Fri Oct 12 08:47:10 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 08:47:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <470e5a8a.0d38400a.64f9.ffffc495@mx.google.com>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <470e5a8a.0d38400a.64f9.ffffc495@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <2aa69fe40710120547j29d8df9ds1df9080f2130290c@mail.gmail.com>

As promises - please read my entry at http://blog.icann.org on this subject.

Best,
Veni


On 10/11/07, veni markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> Just quickly, more - tomorrow.
>
> Don't worry about reading such "bombastic" articles in the Russian
> media, inspired by "sources in military uniforms", as the original
> articles said in the summer. I've done some research on that issue,
> and have read the Russian Strategy for development of Information
> Society; of course there's nothing like that there.
>
> veni
>
> At 17:50 10/11/2007  +0200, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> >Not sure what this means:
> >1) separate root server for the Russian / CIS DNS?
> >2) introduction of cyrillic IDNs?
> >3) a CIS-wide WAN / TCP-IP network that is not connected to the internet?
> >4) all three of the above?
> >5) just bluffing?
> >
> >Does anybody know more about this?
> >The text also mentions China's gated internet, but also refers to a
> >similar thing "in development in the Arab countries". Any info on the
> latter?
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 12 12:13:46 2007
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Re:  Any info on the latter?

Might be referring to the Arabic Domain Names Pilot
Project -- see
ttp://www.icann.org/announcements/adnpp-v02-12dec05.pdf


--- Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Not sure what this means:
> 1) separate root server for the Russian / CIS DNS?
> 2) introduction of cyrillic IDNs?
> 3) a CIS-wide WAN / TCP-IP network that is not
> connected to the internet?
> 4) all three of the above?
> 5) just bluffing?
> 
> Does anybody know more about this?
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, but
> also refers to a
> similar thing "in development in the Arab
> countries". Any info on the latter?
> 
> Best, Ralf
> 
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org
> [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf
> Of Louis Pouzin
> Sent: October 11, 2007 4:07 AM
> To: linguistk at googlegroups.com; gov at wsis-gov.org
> Subject: [Gov 93] internet cyrillique en gestation -
> internet localisation
> marching on
> 
> Picked on the grapevine.
> 
> *Russia will create independent Cyrillic WEB.
> 
> Translated from the original Russian article
> authored by Konstantin
> Getmansky at Russia’s premier newspaper web-site at
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/
> 
> /(Note: A few days after the announcement below by
> President Putin at
> the Security Council meeting of the Russian
> Federation, further
> Russian language press reports appeared stating that
> the Security
> committee within the Russian Duma (parliament) had
> publicly enodorsed
> Putin's initiative)
> 
> /*Vladimir Putin
> At the latest session of Security Council of the
> Russian Federation
> it’s been declared that by 2015 Russia will become
> one of the leaders
> of the global information space. This matter
> includes the creation in
> Russia of its own web.
> 
> Russian analogue of the Internet* will be completely
> independent from
> the traditional World Wide Web (www) and at first
> stage of the project
> is going to include the CIS countries. This
> information was received
> from a governmental source.
> 
> *There are several reasons for creation* of an
> independent network in
> Russia.
> 
> *Firstly*, there are reasons related to information
> safety and
> security. Today it is a matter of fact that Russian
> users are
> accessing the Internet via channels which are in the
> control of the US
> government. Experts say there is the potential for
> the US to block
> these channels in the hypothetical scenario of an
> adverse development
> in the bilateral relationship between Russia and
> USA.
> 
> *Secondly, at present only the US *is engaged in the
> process of making
> decisions relating to the distribution of domain
> names amongst all the
> countries. Thus in essence the US is operating and
> supervising all
> global Internet traffic.
> 
> *Two years ago *in Tunis at the United Nations World
> Summit of the
> Information Society (WSIS) the rights for making
> decisions relating to
> the distribution of domain names between the
> countries was reviewed
> for change but ultimately remained under the
> US-controlled
> organization - Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers
> (ICANN). This occurred against the will of the other
> countries such as
> Russia, India and China.
> 
> *At the same *Tunis *summit* the US senator -
> Republican Norm Kohlman
> - declared, that only the US can have a supervisory
> role over the
> Internet. He strongly rejected any idea for
> transferring any Internet
> authority to the United Nations. Further he labeled
> the United Nations
> as absolutely incompetent and corrupt.
> 
> *Thirdly, domain names* in the proposed independent
> Russian network
> will use a Cyrillic script. Those proposing this
> project say it will
> help to strengthen the influence of Russia in the
> CIS countries. They
> further say that it will also increase the status of
> the Russian
> language in the countries of Commonwealth
> territories.
> 
> It is not determined yet* what organizations will
> undertake* the
> creation of the Russian web and how much it will
> cost. Also it is not
> clear yet, how the Russian network will interact
> with the traditional
> World Wide Web.
> 
> *By the way, *a similar project of an independent
> computer network
> already exists in China and is in development in the
> Arabic countries.
> They have the same motives: safety, creation of an
> independent cyber
> space for their own language communities and the
> convenience of using
> of the Internet for their native language speakers.
> 
> Konstantin Getmansky
> The address/link of the article:
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/>
> 
> 
> Reçu de la voix du réseau:
> - - -
> La Russie va créer une toile cyrillique indépendante
> Traduit de l'article original signé par Konstantin
> Getmansky dans le site
> d'un journal important, à:
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/
> 
> /(Note: Quelques jours après l'annonce ci-dessous
> par le président Poutine à
> la réunion du Conseil de Sécurité de la Fédération
> de Russie, d'autres
> communiqués de presse ont indiqué que le comité de
> Sécurité de la Douma
> (parlement) de Russie a approuvé publiquement
> l'initiative de Poutine.)
> 
> /*Vladimir Putin
> Lors de la dernière session du Conseil de Sécurité
> de la Fédération de
> Russie il a été déclaré qu'en 2015 la Russie sera un
> des grands de l'espace
> global de l'information. Cette affaire inclut la
> création en Russie de sa
> propre Toile.
> 
> La version russe de l'Internet sera complètement
> indépendante du
> traditionnel  World Wide Web (www) et pour commencer
> le projet va inclure
> les pays de la CIS. Cette information provient d'une
> source gouvernementale.
> 
> Il y a plusieurs raisons pour créer un réseau
> indépendant en Russie.
> 
> * Tout d'abord, il y a des raisons relevant de la
> sûreté et de la sécurité
> de l'information. Aujourd'hui c'est un fait que les
> usagers russes accèdent
> à l'internet via des canaux qui sont sous le
> contrôle du gouvernement
> américain. Les experts disent qu'il est possible
> pour les US de bloquer ces
> canaux dans l'hypothèse d'un scénario d'une
> évolution hostile des relations
> bilatérales entre Russie et USA.
> 
> * Ensuite, actuellement les US sont engagés dans un
> processus de prise de
> décisions relatives à la distribution des noms de
> domaines entre tous les
> pays. Ainsi en fait les US effectuent et supervisent
> tout le trafic global
> de l'internet.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Fri Oct 12 13:59:35 2007
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: 928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <sympa.1192211715.2152.740@lists.cpsr.org>


RE:
   Ralf Bendrath et.al.:
   Louis Pouzin /
   gov at wsis-gov.org; 
   gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org;
   linguistk at googlegroups.com

> Does anybody know more about this?
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, 
--

Reporters Without Borders:
Journey to the Heart of Internet Censorship
China | 10.10.2007
� Reporters Without Borders 2007 - 47, rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris - France


A �Journey to the Heart of Internet censorship� on eve of party congress 

In partnership with Reporters Without Borders and Chinese Human Rights
Defenders, a 

Chinese Internet expert working in IT industry has produced an exclusive study
on the 

key mechanism of the Chinese official system of online censorship, surveillance
and 

propaganda. The author prefers to remain anonymous.

On the eve of the 17th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP),
which 

opens this week in Beijing, Reporters Without Borders and the Chinese Human
Rights 

Defenders call on the government to allow the Chinese to exercise their rights
to 

freedom of press, expression and information.

�This system of censorship is unparalleled anywhere in the world and is an
insult to 

the spirit of online freedom,� the two organisations said. �With less than a
year to 

go before the Beijing Olympics, there is an urgent need for the government to
stop 

blocking thousands of websites, censoring online news and imprisoning Internet 

activists.�

This report shows how the CCP and the government have deployed colossal human
and 

financial resources to obstruct online free expression. Chinese news websites
and 

blogs have been brought under the editorial control of the propaganda apparatus
at 

both the national and local levels.

The use of the Internet keeps growing in China. The country now has more than
160 

million Internet users and at least 1.3 million websites. But the Internet�s
promise 

of free expression and information has been nipped in the bud by the Chinese 

government�s online censorship and surveillance system.

�Journey to the Heart of Internet Censorship� explains how this control system 

functions and identifies its leading actors such the Internet Propaganda 

Administrative Bureau (an offshoot of the Information Office of the State
Council, the 

executive office of the government), the Bureau of Information and Public
Opinion (an 

offshoot of the party�s Publicity Department, the former Propaganda Department)
and 

the Internet Bureau (another Publicity Department offshoot).

The report also documents how the Beijing Internet Information Administrative
Bureau 

has in practice asserted its daily editorial control over the leading news
websites 

based in the nation�s Capital. It gives many examples of the actual
instructions 

issued by officials in charge of this bureau.

The last part of the report gives the results of a series of tests conducted
with the 

mechanism of control through filtering keywords. These tests clearly show that,
though 

there are still many disparities in the levels of censorship, the authorities
have 

successfully coerced the online media into submission to censor themselves
heavily on 

sensitive subjects.

This report recommends using proxy servers, exploiting the different levels of 

censorship between provinces or between levels in the administration and using
new 

Internet technologies (blogs, discussion forums, Internet telephony etc.)

Download the full report

Ref.:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=23924

Print:
http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=23924 

Report PDF:
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Voyage_au_coeur_de_la_censure_GB.pdf

-

ALSO

Re:
> but also refers to a similar thing 
> "in development in the Arab countries".

SEE:
List of the 13 Internet enemies

Article:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603

Print:
http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=19603

THE INTERNET "BLACK HOLES" [Map Image]
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/une/fr/internet/carte-trous-noirs06.jpg

---

> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>
> Does anybody know more about this?
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, 
> but also refers to a similar thing 
> "in development in the Arab countries".
> Any info on the latter?
> 
> Best, Ralf

---
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  Fri Oct 12 14:02:57 2007
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Burmese Internet misgovernance
In-Reply-To: C3281E3B.DBA2%drake@hei.unige.ch
Message-ID: <sympa.1192211979.1303.515@lists.cpsr.org>

Re: William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch>
      Burmese Internet misgovernance
-

Reporters Without Borders:
List of the 13 Internet enemies
� Reporters Without Borders 2007 - 47, rue Vivienne, 75002 Paris - France

Article:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19603

Print:
http://www.rsf.org/print.php3?id_article=19603

THE INTERNET "BLACK HOLES" [Map Image]
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/une/fr/internet/carte-trous-noirs06.jpg

--
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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Fri Oct 12 14:01:59 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:01:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>

This is one time when it is worth believing what you see ...

Attached is an authoritative translation.  Mr Putin has indeed sealed 
the matter.  Sources, Russian, impeccable, at the center of the work, 
can be supplied.

First, China, now Russia, more in the oven, soon to come out piping hot,

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Russia will create independent Cyrillic WEB says Putin.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071012/ac6290f6/attachment.doc>

From veni at veni.com  Fri Oct 12 15:37:45 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:37:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
Message-ID: <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>

David,
this is one time when it is worth beleving what you see... AFTER you 
check the facts.
What you have attached is not an authoritative translation of Mr. 
Putin's words, but of the article which was published earlier on this 
mailing list. Sources are supplied in the article itself - "in 
miltary uniform", to use the exact phrase. Your "authoritative" 
translation (and I say "yours", because I see you've edited the doc 
file) says on that same line "governmental source".

Hope this little clarification makes things more clear. Perhaps, if 
you visit the blog entry I wrote at http://blog.icann.org/?p=173 you 
may see the connection to Mr. Putin's words there. And then, make the 
translation again. As you will see, unlike your source of a 
newspaper, we are using the Kremlin's site - I think more relevant 
source. 
http://kremlin.ru/appears/2007/07/25/1945_type63378_138519.shtml and 
http://kremlin.ru/text/docs/2007/07/138695.shtml

best,
veni

At 14:01 10/12/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>This is one time when it is worth believing what you see ...
>
>Attached is an authoritative translation.  Mr Putin has indeed 
>sealed the matter.  Sources, Russian, impeccable, at the center of 
>the work, can be supplied.
>
>First, China, now Russia, more in the oven, soon to come out piping hot,
>
>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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 12 14:50:32 2007
From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Ad-Hoc Working Group now being formed
Message-ID: <101552.81051.qm@web52209.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

There are many in the community that have issues with
some of the new gTLD recommendations put forward by
ICANN's GNSO Council.

An ad-hoc WG is being formed to aggregate these
concerns for presentation to the ICANN Board at the
upcoming session in Los Angeles.

Anyone may subscribe to this WG at 
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-liaison_atlarge-lists.icann.org

Details:

(1) Short timeframe - WG ends on Thursday, 25 October
(2) WG members will each draft comments on whatever
issues they might have with certain recommendations
(3) Initial comments due by 22 October
(4) First draft of Final Document (incorporating all
comments) by 23 October
(5) Final Document by 25 October
(6) ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) will
review the WG effort in LA and will provide a
Statement to accompany the Final Document for
transmission to the ICANN board.


The GNSO new gTLD recommendations:

1.  ICANN must implement a process that allows the
introduction of new top-level domains.  The evaluation
and selection procedure for new gTLD registries should
respect the principles of fairness, transparency and
non-discrimination.  All applicants for a new gTLD
registry should therefore be evaluated against
transparent and predictable criteria, fully available
to the applicants prior to the initiation of the
process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional
selection criteria should be used in the selection
process.  

2.  Strings must not be confusingly similar to an
existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name.

3.  Strings must not infringe the existing legal
rights of others that are recognized or enforceable
under generally accepted and internationally
recognized principles of law.  Examples of these legal
rights that are internationally recognized include,
but are not limited to, rights defined in the Paris
Convention for the Protection of Industry Property (in
particular trademark rights), the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) (in particular freedom of expression rights).

4.  Strings must not cause any technical instability.

5.  Strings must not be a Reserved Word.
 
6.  Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted
legal norms relating to morality and public order that
are recognized under international principles of law.
Examples of such principles of law include, but are
not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
intellectual property treaties administered by the
World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and
the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property (TRIPS).   

7.  Applicants must be able to demonstrate their
technical capability to run a registry operation for
the purpose that the applicant sets out. 

8.  Applicants must be able to demonstrate their
financial and organisational operational capability.

9.  There must be a clear and pre-published
application process using objective and measurable
criteria. 
 
10.  There must be a base contract provided to
applicants at the beginning of the application
process. 
 
11. [Replaced with Recommendation 20 and
Implementation Guideline P and inserted into Term of
Reference 3 Allocation Methods section]
   
12. Dispute resolution and challenge processes must be
established prior to the start of the process. 
 
13. Applications must initially be assessed in rounds
until the scale of demand is clear. 
  
14.  The initial registry agreement term must be of a
commercially reasonable length.
 
15.  There must be renewal expectancy. 
 
16.  Registries must apply existing Consensus Policies
and adopt new Consensus Policies as they are approved.

17.  A clear compliance and sanctions process must be
set out in the base contract which could lead to
contract termination. 

18.  If an applicant offers an IDN service, then
ICANN's IDN guidelines must be followed.
 
19.  Registries must use only ICANN accredited
registrars in registering domain names and may not
discriminate among such accredited registrars.
 
20.  An application will be rejected if an expert
panel determines that there is substantial opposition
to it from a significant portion of the community to
which the string may be explicitly or implicitly
targeted. 

 
Links: 

Most recent Public Comments: 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/

Final Report:  Introduction of New Generic Top-Level
Domains --
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm

The summary of the report on the Introduction of new
Top Level Domains --
http://ttcsweb.pbwiki.com/f/New+gtlds+workshop+document.pdf

Input received on the policy development process on
new gTLDs --
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/new-gtld-pdp-input.htm



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 12 17:13:29 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:13:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



Nice to see that something posted on the IGP blog two weeks ago is now
making the rounds here..... :-)
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/9/24/3250527.html

The Russian translation was accurate, and verified so by a native
Russian-speaking GigaNet participant. 
The story is serious enough, but whether it is a trial balloon or an
empty threat no one can know for sure, of course. Only time will tell.
But it is newsworthy enough that the Russian government would even
propose to do something like that. 

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: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
internet

On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:50:53PM +0200,
 Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote 
 a message of 177 lines which said:

> Not sure what this means:

Noone is sure. The original paper is in russian (which I do not read)
and we cannot be sure of the translation. Not to mention the
seriouness and the veracity of the original article.

> 5) just bluffing?

Probably.
 
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, but also refers to a
> similar thing "in development in the Arab countries". Any info on
> the latter?

See above.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 12 17:29:18 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:29:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGP Newsletter, Vol 2.04
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E73@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

 
======================================
Internet Governance Project Newsletter
======================================
...current events in Internet Governance and the activities of the Internet Governance Project.
http://www.internetgovernance.org

Volume 2.04
October 12, 2007

========
Contents
========

[1] Two IGP Workshops at 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum
[2] Sunsetting Whois?
[3] IDNs Finally Here?
[4] IANA's DNSSEC Best Practice: No One Party Should Be in 
Control
[5] The Politics of DNSSEC: The Light Begins to Dawn at 
IETF
[6] GigaNet program set
[7] OECD: Mobilizing Civil Society for the Internet 
Ministerial
[8] Upcoming IG Events

======================================================
[1] Workshops on DNSSEC and "Public Policy" at the 2007
     UN Internet Governance Forum in Rio
======================================================

For the second year in a row, IGP is co-sponsoring two workshops at the Internet Governance Forum. This year the Forum will be held in Rio de Janeiro, from November 11-15. A sharp increase in submissions this year to the increasingly important global discussion venue meant only workshops that addressed substantive Internet policy issues and brought together multistakeholder perspectives were selected. Continuing its leading role in making Internet governance discussions accessible to a global audience, IGP workshop attendees will be able to pose questions or participate in the discussion either in person or online using the online collaboration technology, Elluminate.

-----

IGF Workshop: "DNSSEC: Securing a Critical Internet Resource"
14 November, 2007
Meeting Room III, Hotel Windsor Barra
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Start time: 10:30 (Rio de Janeiro); 13:30 (Berlin); 7:30 
(US Eastern); 19:30 (China)
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/events.html#IGF2007DNSSECWorkshop_111406>

This workshop, co-sponsored by the IGP, CGI.br, and EuroISPA considers Internet governance and cyber security, and particularly DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC). The workshop will focus on the tensions and complementarities between global and national policy making, and the pursuit of global governance solutions to cyber security problems. DNSSEC is an IETF technical standard that could improve the security of the global DNS and reduce criminal or disruptive acts. A critical step in deploying DNSSEC widely is the signing of the root zone file, a critical Internet resource. The procedure for signing the root, and more importantly, determining the authorities who control the digital signing of this critical Internet resource has yet to be decided. What kinds of institutions, processes, and coordination are needed to secure the root and ensure demand for DNSSEC services? Are there specific and complimentary roles that governments, international 
organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector can or should play? This session brings together experts to address these questions.

-----

IGF Workshop: "Public Policy on the Internet: What is it, who makes it?"
14 November, 2007
Meeting Room VI, Hotel Windsor Barra
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Start time: 18:30 (Rio de Janeiro); 21:30 (Berlin); 15:30 
(US Eastern); 4:30 (China)
<http://www.internetgovernance.org/events.html#IGF2007PublicPolicyWorkshop_111406>

This workshop, co-sponsored by the IGP, the Government of France, Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd, Afilias, and the 
Internet Governance Caucus deals with three closely related themes derived from the Tunis Agenda:

What is "public policy" on the Internet? Can we reliably identify when Internet governance issues become "public 
policy" issues, and can these be isolated and extracted from "day-to-day technical and operational matters"? When 
do we need global as opposed to national policies for the Internet? Is the claim that states have a "sovereign 
right" to make policy for the Internet compatible with the global scope of the Internet and the generally non-territorial reach of networked computers? Do national states adequately represent all aspects of the public interest at the global level? What was intended by the Tunis Agenda's call for the "development of globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet resources"? What kind of "globally 
applicable principles" could be applied to the Internet resources? How would such principles improve and guide 
Internet governance? In what venue would such principles 
be developed and adopted?

-----

The full slate of IGF workshops can be viewed here:

<http://info.intgovforum.org/wsl3.php>

=====================
[2] Sunsetting Whois
=====================

ICANN's domain name policy making Council is considering a revolutionary move. Since ICANN's binding policies are supposed to be based on "consensus" and it is clear that no consensus on the Whois-privacy tradeoff exists, some Council members are proposing to throw out those parts of the registrar accreditation contract that require a Whois service. The idea is not to abolish Whois per se, but to create a "clean slate" for the renegotiation of a new Whois policy that everyone can agree to. Under the current arrangement, one side of the controversy gets exactly what it wants -- completely open access to all registrant contact data -- and therefore has no incentive to agree to any changes.

The Whois-Sunset proposal could pass the GNSO Council, but would it get by the US government-supervised management and Board? In its participation on the Whois working group and in its formal JPA with ICANN the US government has already made it clear what kind of an outcome it wants. There will be ample opportunities for it to pressure Board members formally and informally prior to and at the LA meeting.

Read a summary on the politics of Whois Task Force:

<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/8/22/3174023.html>


======================
[3] IDNs Finally Here?
======================

A Script for Every Surfer, Washington Post, October 12

"On Monday, ICANN will conduct a test to see whether domains written entirely in foreign scripts can work without crashing the Net. For several years, the company has allowed domains that are half in foreign characters, such as [Chinese text].com or [Arabic text].org. For the test, domain names will look like [Korean text].[Korean text]. The long road to this stage, which comes nearly a decade after the technology for creating multilingual domains was invented, has left many in the non-English-speaking world impatient and angry. Questions of political and linguistic sovereignty, alongside 
accusations of American "digital colonialism," have motivated some countries to create their own Internets, effectively mounting a challenge to the World Wide Web....At least a dozen countries, including China and Saudi Arabia, have created their own domains in different alphabets and their own Internets to support these domains. A Russian newspaper article last July reported that President Vladimir Putin was commissioning the creation of a Cyrillic Internet. Users of Russia's 
Internet, like current users of China's and Saudi Arabia's, could surf the Web without going through U.S.-controlled ICANN servers."

Read the whole story:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002642_2.html>

See also our blog post on the threatened Russian Internet:

<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/9/24/3250527.html>

==================================================================
[4] IANA's DNSSEC Best Practice: No One Party Should Be in Control
==================================================================

Outlining a DNSSEC digital signing process for the critical Internet zones under their direct control, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) expressed to the DNSSEC-Deployment group that "no one party be in control" when it comes to key generation and signing activities for security reasons.  While IANA's approach does not distribute digital signing in the traditional technical sense (e.g., using split keys, or multiple signatures), it does introduce split-knowledge techniques into the management of a DNSSEC signed zone, and IANA should be commended for this.  Additionally, IANA is 
pushing laudable design goals including easy maintainability, reliability, and transparency in securing .arpa and its subzones, and .int. The hardware specified is generic and widely available, the software scripts involved will be "open" with BSD style licensing. But most importantly, the process design requires two individuals to sign any zone.  The critical decision of who these parties are has yet to be made, but IANA intends to have .arpa and subzones signed by the ICANN meeting in LA.  However, IANA has not yet confirmed plans to have .int signed by then.  It is unclear if IANA is negotiating with the various international organizations which use the .int top level domain.  As you probably know from IGP's extensive coverage on DNSSEC, the issue of who should have authority over key generation and signing of the Internet's root zone has been in contention for some time. Assuming that IANA follows thru on diversifying control in 
its zone signing process, the parties involved in managing and signing the root zone (ICANN/IANA, US-DoC, VeriSign) might be able to learn from IANA's example.

View the IANA presentation:

<http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/IANA_zone_signing_process.pdf>

=============================================================
[5] The Politics of DNSSEC: The Light Begins to Dawn at IETF
=============================================================

IGP is sometimes accused of needlessly "politicizing" Internet policy issues, especially by a few members of the  technical community.  But fortunately, there are community members who understand that technology does not exist in a vacuum, and that simple game theory and its application to the politics of the root zone can predict likely outcomes.  One of these people is Dr. Phillip Hallam-Baker, a DNS expert at VeriSign, who incisively described in a post to an IETF list the political implications of deploying DNSSEC with a single entity signing the root, something we at IGP have been trying to do for about a year now. Some excerpts:

"I think that some folk besides myself have to do some wargaming to consider what the political consequences of signing the root might be...If the root is signed by a unitary entity, that entity has absolute power...The idea that control of [signing] the DNS root will not be subjected to even more considerable geo-political pressure is naïve...So no, I don't think that there will be a unitary signer. The [DNSSEC] architecture is inherently flawed. Rather than have a single party sign the root we should probably look to a situation where there are multiple signer entities."

Read Dr. Hallam-Baker's entire post here:

<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/9/9/3217425.html>

Read the IGP proposal arguing for multiple signers (released May 2007) here:

<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/5/17/2957108.html>

==================================
[6] GigaNet Symposium program set
==================================

A new network of academic researchers focused on Internet governance is flourishing. The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) holds an annual symposium alongside the Rio Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This year's program was drawn from three times as many submissions as last year. It focuses on three themes: "A Development Agenda for Internet Governance," "The Changing Institutionalization of the Internet" and "Critical Policy Issues in Internet Governance."

See the complete program here:

<http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/GigaNet2007Program.pdf>

===============================================================
[7] OECD: Mobilizing Civil Society for the Internet Ministerial
===============================================================

A series of meetings in Ottawa, Canada last week started setting the foundation for civil society participation in the Seoul Ministerial on The Future of the Internet Economy. IGP is involved in this initiative, along with APC and EPIC's Public Voice, as part of the reference group coordinating civil society participation. There were 3 meetings of interest: an initial exploratory gathering of civil society Forum participants on Wednesday October 3rd; official OECD intergovernmental meetings on Thursday October 4th; and a liaison between non-state actors and the South Korean government officials responsible for organizing the logistical aspects of the Seoul meeting.

Read the OECD planning meeting summary here:

<http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2007/10/5/3273492.html>

======================
[8] Upcoming IG Events
======================

17-19 October 2007, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA ARIN XX
<http://www.arin.net/meetings/>

22-26 October 2007, Amsterdam, the Netherlands RIPE 55
<http://ripe.net/ripe/meetings/>

29 October-2 November 2007, Los Angeles, US 30th International Public ICANN Meeting
<http://losangeles2007.icann.org/>

11 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil GigaNet'07 - Global Internet Governance Academic Network 2nd Annual Symposium
<http://www.igloo.org/giganet>

12-15 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum hosted by The Government of Brazil
<http://www.igfbrazil2007.br/>
<http://www.intgovforum.org/>
<http://cgi.br/igf/>

=========================
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 12 17:50:19 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:50:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>

It's becoming already like a game of a broken phone (which perhaps 
you haven't played in the US, as the phones don't break there ;)

The Russian translation is not accurate, at least not when citing the 
source of the "news". It's one thing to say, "sources in military 
uniform say this", and it's different to actually claim, "we learn 
that the Security Council of the Russian Federation has declared that 
Russia will create its own Web, in Cyrillic, "completely independent 
from the traditional WWW."

Milton, you didn't actually learn this thing about the Russian 
Security Council, because you couldn't learn it. I, on the other 
hand, have read the original article back in July, and have made my 
research on the actual source, not the ones "in military uniforms". 
The Russian (and Bulgarian, for that sake) media are full with such 
bombastic headlines, which aim at bringing more readers, not bringing 
more news. If I were you, I'd do my survey first, before claiming so 
strong statements. But, then, I am not you.


At 17:13 10/12/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>Nice to see that something posted on the IGP blog two weeks ago is now
>making the rounds here..... :-)




Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com

The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
not of any organizations, associated with or related to
the author in any given way.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071012/798c0f40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071012/798c0f40/attachment.txt>

From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm  Fri Oct 12 14:29:32 2007
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:29:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAAK2jd6dVgedHrTNxeN5nsegBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm>

Here's another reference to subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002
642.html?referrer=emailarticle 

Carlton Samuels

-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 11:14 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath
Subject: Re: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet

Re:  Any info on the latter?

Might be referring to the Arabic Domain Names Pilot
Project -- see
ttp://www.icann.org/announcements/adnpp-v02-12dec05.pdf


--- Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> Not sure what this means:
> 1) separate root server for the Russian / CIS DNS?
> 2) introduction of cyrillic IDNs?
> 3) a CIS-wide WAN / TCP-IP network that is not
> connected to the internet?
> 4) all three of the above?
> 5) just bluffing?
> 
> Does anybody know more about this?
> The text also mentions China's gated internet, but
> also refers to a
> similar thing "in development in the Arab
> countries". Any info on the latter?
> 
> Best, Ralf
> 
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> From: gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org
> [mailto:gov-bounces at wsis-gov.org] On Behalf
> Of Louis Pouzin
> Sent: October 11, 2007 4:07 AM
> To: linguistk at googlegroups.com; gov at wsis-gov.org
> Subject: [Gov 93] internet cyrillique en gestation -
> internet localisation
> marching on
> 
> Picked on the grapevine.
> 
> *Russia will create independent Cyrillic WEB.
> 
> Translated from the original Russian article
> authored by Konstantin
> Getmansky at Russia’s premier newspaper web-site at
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/
> 
> /(Note: A few days after the announcement below by
> President Putin at
> the Security Council meeting of the Russian
> Federation, further
> Russian language press reports appeared stating that
> the Security
> committee within the Russian Duma (parliament) had
> publicly enodorsed
> Putin's initiative)
> 
> /*Vladimir Putin
> At the latest session of Security Council of the
> Russian Federation
> it’s been declared that by 2015 Russia will become
> one of the leaders
> of the global information space. This matter
> includes the creation in
> Russia of its own web.
> 
> Russian analogue of the Internet* will be completely
> independent from
> the traditional World Wide Web (www) and at first
> stage of the project
> is going to include the CIS countries. This
> information was received
> from a governmental source.
> 
> *There are several reasons for creation* of an
> independent network in
> Russia.
> 
> *Firstly*, there are reasons related to information
> safety and
> security. Today it is a matter of fact that Russian
> users are
> accessing the Internet via channels which are in the
> control of the US
> government. Experts say there is the potential for
> the US to block
> these channels in the hypothetical scenario of an
> adverse development
> in the bilateral relationship between Russia and
> USA.
> 
> *Secondly, at present only the US *is engaged in the
> process of making
> decisions relating to the distribution of domain
> names amongst all the
> countries. Thus in essence the US is operating and
> supervising all
> global Internet traffic.
> 
> *Two years ago *in Tunis at the United Nations World
> Summit of the
> Information Society (WSIS) the rights for making
> decisions relating to
> the distribution of domain names between the
> countries was reviewed
> for change but ultimately remained under the
> US-controlled
> organization - Internet Corporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers
> (ICANN). This occurred against the will of the other
> countries such as
> Russia, India and China.
> 
> *At the same *Tunis *summit* the US senator -
> Republican Norm Kohlman
> - declared, that only the US can have a supervisory
> role over the
> Internet. He strongly rejected any idea for
> transferring any Internet
> authority to the United Nations. Further he labeled
> the United Nations
> as absolutely incompetent and corrupt.
> 
> *Thirdly, domain names* in the proposed independent
> Russian network
> will use a Cyrillic script. Those proposing this
> project say it will
> help to strengthen the influence of Russia in the
> CIS countries. They
> further say that it will also increase the status of
> the Russian
> language in the countries of Commonwealth
> territories.
> 
> It is not determined yet* what organizations will
> undertake* the
> creation of the Russian web and how much it will
> cost. Also it is not
> clear yet, how the Russian network will interact
> with the traditional
> World Wide Web.
> 
> *By the way, *a similar project of an independent
> computer network
> already exists in China and is in development in the
> Arabic countries.
> They have the same motives: safety, creation of an
> independent cyber
> space for their own language communities and the
> convenience of using
> of the Internet for their native language speakers.
> 
> Konstantin Getmansky
> The address/link of the article:
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/>
> 
> 
> Reçu de la voix du réseau:
> - - -
> La Russie va créer une toile cyrillique indépendante
> Traduit de l'article original signé par Konstantin
> Getmansky dans le site
> d'un journal important, à:
> <http://dp.ru/msk/news/hitech/2007/07/26/229939/
> 
> /(Note: Quelques jours après l'annonce ci-dessous
> par le président Poutine à
> la réunion du Conseil de Sécurité de la Fédération
> de Russie, d'autres
> communiqués de presse ont indiqué que le comité de
> Sécurité de la Douma
> (parlement) de Russie a approuvé publiquement
> l'initiative de Poutine.)
> 
> /*Vladimir Putin
> Lors de la dernière session du Conseil de Sécurité
> de la Fédération de
> Russie il a été déclaré qu'en 2015 la Russie sera un
> des grands de l'espace
> global de l'information. Cette affaire inclut la
> création en Russie de sa
> propre Toile.
> 
> La version russe de l'Internet sera complètement
> indépendante du
> traditionnel  World Wide Web (www) et pour commencer
> le projet va inclure
> les pays de la CIS. Cette information provient d'une
> source gouvernementale.
> 
> Il y a plusieurs raisons pour créer un réseau
> indépendant en Russie.
> 
> * Tout d'abord, il y a des raisons relevant de la
> sûreté et de la sécurité
> de l'information. Aujourd'hui c'est un fait que les
> usagers russes accèdent
> à l'internet via des canaux qui sont sous le
> contrôle du gouvernement
> américain. Les experts disent qu'il est possible
> pour les US de bloquer ces
> canaux dans l'hypothèse d'un scénario d'une
> évolution hostile des relations
> bilatérales entre Russie et USA.
> 
> * Ensuite, actuellement les US sont engagés dans un
> processus de prise de
> décisions relatives à la distribution des noms de
> domaines entre tous les
> pays. Ainsi en fait les US effectuent et supervisent
> tout le trafic global
> de l'internet.
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 12 18:18:03 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:18:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAAK2
 jd6dVgedHrTNxeN5nsegBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAAK2jd6dVgedHrTNxeN5nsegBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID: <20071012221801.07FAF335EC8@mxr.isoc.bg>

At 13:29 10/12/2007  -0500, Carlton A Samuels wrote:
>Here's another reference to subject:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002
>642.html?referrer=emailarticle


Actually it's not another reference on the subject. It quotes the 
same article, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the people 
the journalist talked to gave the information. Yes, it's true that 
countries have their own "deployment", as Alexei Sozonov says, but 
somehow this deployment has not turned into the Internet. Neither the 
Russian users have stopped using the Internet, in favour of some 
other, different, smaller, Russian-language-only Internet. Plus, the 
fact that a private company, domain registrar, wants to have more 
domains to register, is not surprising.

Again - read the sources, not the quotes.

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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Oct 12 19:27:54 2007
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:27:54 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
References:  <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAAK2jd6dVgedHrTNxeN5nsegBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 

Here's another reference to subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002
642.html?referrer=emailarticle

The link has expired. Can you send the text?

 

Thanks

 

wolfgang 

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From tvetter at iisd.ca  Fri Oct 12 20:30:42 2007
From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 19:30:42 -0500
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAYAAAAAAAAADc6I8Pt5GtPqmO4kKJGMcTCgAAAEAAAAK2jd6dVgedHrTNxeN5nsegBAAAAAA==@uwimona.edu.jm> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DBD3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD034A02B4@proton.iisd.ca>

The url wrapped onto a second line. If you cut and paste it back together it works.

Regards,

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: October 12, 2007 7:28 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlton A Samuels; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Danny Younger
Subject: AW: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet


 

Here's another reference to subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002
642.html?referrer=emailarticle

The link has expired. Can you send the text?

 

Thanks

 

wolfgang 

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Oct 13 01:05:51 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:05:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /  internet
In-Reply-To: <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Calm down, Veni. For once, you have something substantive to offer to the dialogue, It is good, don’t spoil it with personal attacks. If the translation or the translator altered the imputed source, perhaps you are right, perhaps not, I am in no position to know that. Both in my blog and in my post today I recognized the possibility that this could be bombast: (quote)

 

“This "independent web" is of course not real yet, and the whole article could just be a trial balloon floated by nationalists who don't understand very well what they are trying to do.” 

 

 On the other hand, it could reflect the intentions or feelings of certain people in Russia. What we do know is that China is already doing it and that the prospect of other countries imitating that model is something we need to take very seriously. 

 

   _____  

From: Veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of veni markovski
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:50 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet

 

It's becoming already like a game of a broken phone (which perhaps you haven't played in the US, as the phones don't break there ;) 

The Russian translation is not accurate, at least not when citing the source of the "news". It's one thing to say, "sources in military uniform say this", and it's different to actually claim, "we learn that the Security Council of the Russian Federation has declared that Russia will create its own Web, in Cyrillic, "completely independent from the traditional WWW." 

Milton, you didn't actually learn this thing about the Russian Security Council, because you couldn't learn it. I, on the other hand, have read the original article back in July, and have made my research on the actual source, not the ones "in military uniforms". The Russian (and Bulgarian, for that sake) media are full with such bombastic headlines, which aim at bringing more readers, not bringing more news. If I were you, I'd do my survey first, before claiming so strong statements. But, then, I am not you.


At 17:13 10/12/2007  -0400, you wrote:



Nice to see that something posted on the IGP blog two weeks ago is now
making the rounds here..... :-)







Veni Markovski
HYPERLINK "http://www.veni.com/"http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
HYPERLINK "http://blog.veni.com/"http://blog.veni.com 

The opinions expressed above are those of the author, 
not of any organizations, associated with or related to 
the author in any given way. 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007 11:10 AM
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071013/2a48a9e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071013/2a48a9e0/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Sat Oct 13 06:11:52 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 06:11:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	 <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com>

Milton and all,

You have been growing in a country whiich has somewhat level of
freedom of the press. It is good. It will be also good to NOT believe
that every other country is like that. It is also good to know that
certain countries have certain policies. You mention China and Russia.

I am sure that you may have wondered why exactly this "news" for
alternative "Internet" are coming from couintries which are not among
the most technologically developed countries? it is not a matter of me
being calm or not calm. I have nothing to do in this question, except
providing you with relevant information.

I certainly didn't mean to attack you, be that personally or
professionally. The discussion is not about us, but about the fact
that people tend to forget the basic principles of good, reliable
information, and that is, "check the facts". Are there people in
Russia, who want their own Internet? Sure, but what people is the
correct way to ask the question. Same for other countries. While it is
tempting to fight with the "evil American imperialists" (Wolfgang can
support me on this quote, as it was used in East Germany a lot before
1989), there are certain issues about innovation, creativity, hi-tech
development, etc. If you want to get real information about Russia,
tell me - how many times did any of the members of the list talked to
the Russian ccTLD, who has been at the last two ICANN meetings,
together with a number of the board members of .ru ccTLD? Or to some
of the registrars, who also were in Lisbon and Puerto Rico?

Yes, it is tempting to get the bombastic headline or article from a
Russian newspaper, mechanically translate it, and miss the little
allusions which actually give the real story.

I think it is more important for the Internet world the fact that .ru
has an Accountability Framework agreement with ICANN, that www.rans.ru
has good  working relations with ICANN, ISOC, ITU, and is now getting
the information about the IETF ISOC's fellowships to the Russian
engineers, etc.... than some article about something that someone has
said.

Hope you'd agree on that.

Best,
Veni



On 10/13/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Calm down, Veni. For once, you have something substantive to offer to the
> dialogue, It is good, don't spoil it with personal attacks. If the
> translation or the translator altered the imputed source, perhaps you are
> right, perhaps not, I am in no position to know that. Both in my blog and in
> my post today I recognized the possibility that this could be bombast:
> (quote)
>
>
>
> "This "independent web" is of course not real yet, and the whole article
> could just be a trial balloon floated by nationalists who don't understand
> very well what they are trying to do."
>
>
>
>  On the other hand, it could reflect the intentions or feelings of certain
> people in Russia. What we do know is that China is already doing it and that
> the prospect of other countries imitating that model is something we need to
> take very seriously.
>
>
>
>    _____
>
> From: Veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf Of veni
> markovski
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:50 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
> internet
>
>
>
> It's becoming already like a game of a broken phone (which perhaps you
> haven't played in the US, as the phones don't break there ;)
>
> The Russian translation is not accurate, at least not when citing the source
> of the "news". It's one thing to say, "sources in military uniform say
> this", and it's different to actually claim, "we learn that the Security
> Council of the Russian Federation has declared that Russia will create its
> own Web, in Cyrillic, "completely independent from the traditional WWW."
>
> Milton, you didn't actually learn this thing about the Russian Security
> Council, because you couldn't learn it. I, on the other hand, have read the
> original article back in July, and have made my research on the actual
> source, not the ones "in military uniforms". The Russian (and Bulgarian, for
> that sake) media are full with such bombastic headlines, which aim at
> bringing more readers, not bringing more news. If I were you, I'd do my
> survey first, before claiming so strong statements. But, then, I am not you.
>
>
> At 17:13 10/12/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
> Nice to see that something posted on the IGP blog two weeks ago is now
> making the rounds here..... :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Veni Markovski
> HYPERLINK "http://www.veni.com/"http://www.veni.com
>
> check also my blog:
> HYPERLINK "http://blog.veni.com/"http://blog.veni.com
>
> The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
> not of any organizations, associated with or related to
> the author in any given way.
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007
> 11:10 AM
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1066 - Release Date: 10/12/2007
> 11:10 AM
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Sat Oct 13 11:48:43 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:48:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com>

hi,

perhaps i have my naive glasses on again, but i wonder what the real  
so what of all this is.
the Internet is a network of networks.  if someone builds a private  
network of some sort and then wants to have contact with the rest of  
the internet then some sort of gateway, or nat, or or other devie for  
joining dissimilar is put into place and the internet has grown again  
and encompassed more networks and more technologies.

and if someone really wants a private network, like so many  
corporations who have very tight firewalls etc, between them and the  
outside world or like some of these converged new telephone systems,  
so what?  stuff even gets through those firewalls, and i would  
contend that where there is the will traffic will get through.   
traffic will always get through.  and if somewhere it doesn't, and  
people want it to, some new bit of technology will come along to  
enable the traffic get through.  as for firewalls, it is not like  
they don't already exist.  and it isn't lke people aren't already  
finding ways around them.

in my eyes, naive though they be, the really cool thing about the  
Internet through its many years is how is absorbs most any other  
network or technology that rises up.  i see no reason why that should  
not continue to be the case.

i think that if Russia wants to spend its resources on developing a  
new infrastructure, good for them.  and at some point that new  
infrastructure will connect to the rest of the world's  
infrastructure.  and who knows maybe they will come up with some cool  
new technology.  and maybe some people who don't have access in  
Russia will get access.

a.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Oct 13 13:27:25 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:27:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
 <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>

At 3:37 PM -0400 10/12/07, veni markovski wrote:
>this is one time when it is worth beleving what you see... AFTER you check the facts.

hmmm ... it appears that I don't know to check facts before I post.

This sort of insult is what make this list a pleasure and the dialog effective ...

Yes, members of this list have been in touch with all of the above - in fact over a protracted period (certainly also at ICANN meetings, but hardly there as the main focus ...), working on the outcome reported in the Russian article.  Rather than a stalking horse, the piece reports results of long effort.

Yes, the text had been posted here the day before.  But the list did not have it as a doc.  (We waited to post here, until the news article was out.  At least this time, the lag was only a few months, from the article date in July, not the three years lag when we broke to the West the Chinese root.)

No, I do not understand Russian, but the file had to transit my hard drive, from Russia, to get to the post.

As when news of the Chinese root broke, apologists for ICANN explained how it wasn't real and didn't matter.  Then ICANN began furiously to rev up its IDN effort.

What matters, for those who might carry forward the work of the 'Net, is the emergence of a new architecture.  Rather than an unseeing, insulting response, those who have eyes, see.  And respond thoughtfully.  And help lay the ground for next stages.

Fortunately, there is some thoughtful engagement:

At 5:48 PM +0200 10/13/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>... the Internet is a network of networks.  if someone builds a [ ] network ... and then ... some sort of gateway ... joining dissimilar ...

Here, we see glimmers of the new architecture.

[reordered]
>i think that if Russia wants to spend its resources on developing a new infrastructure, good for them.  and at some point that new infrastructure will connect to the rest of the world's infrastructure.

We need to understand that the IDN technology invented ten years ago - now being actualized in linguistic societies one-by-one - was in fact designed from the beginning to connect seamlessly disparate pools of diversity.  From the getgo.  No measures needed to assure interconnection with the rest of the world.  And that is happening now, and so it has been for years.

Seamlessly.  Interconnection.  With no trace of instability.  For years.

Unfortunately on the other main policy front that this must inevitably invoke, censorship, parties are fully inflamed.

>... i would contend that where there is the will traffic will get through. 
>traffic will always get through.  and if somewhere it doesn't, and people want it to, some new bit of technology will come along to enable the traffic get through. ...

Unfortunately - again - the evidence is not with this conclusion, to date.  In the ever-escalating war of anti-censor vs censor tools, the ability to block remains, very widely confirmed.

[reordered]
>the really cool thing about the Internet through its many years is how is absorbs most any other network or technology that rises up.

This for last, because it helps point at whether our problems are technological or people-based.  As far as I can see - as with another major (shooting) war, currently underway, also with inflamed rhetoric - policy, regarding human behavior, not technical tools of war, will in the end determine the day.

If that is correct, we know where to put our intellectual firepower and our policy advocacy.

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Oct 13 13:49:37 2007
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:49:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com>
Message-ID: <020c01c80dc1$6c39ddc0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>

This reminds me of an experience I had in Russia a few years ago.

I met with a research group in a smallish town outside of Moscow.  They had
been involved in theoretical physics but their research funding had
disappeared and in its place they had begun to to do applied research in
various areas including the Internet.

They were using their local town (about 30,000 citizens) as a bit of test
bed and what they had established was a coax based Local Area Network with a
television feed which carried off the satellite television signals, (I
presume pirated) games, local messaging/"email" (in cyrillics) and very
limited access to the Internet on a pay per message basis... From what I
could gather they were paying for one external Internet account for the
entire town and then providing some sort of distributed access to this
through their password protected local network...(before someone asks, let
me say that I don't know how all of this was managed technically and I
apologise in advance for any technical howlers I may have committed in my
brief description here...

All of this at very low cost (locally affordable) to the local citizens and
evidently quite significant satisfaction since they reportedly had a
significant proportion of the town attached to their network.

I have no idea where this initiative has gone since I ran across it... (my
understanding was that the group responsible were establishing similar such
LAN electronic islands in various similarly sized communities throughout
Russia...

The example is interesting for me as a form of "community network" of
course, but also I think in the context here as a way for creating thinly
inter-connected nodes in the larger Internet including with the localized
capacity to operate in whatever language script one wished with a "managed"
interconnection between these localized islands and the larger
Internet...(does this sound familiar to anyone...

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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
Sent: October 13, 2007 8:49 AM
To: Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
internet


hi,

perhaps i have my naive glasses on again, but i wonder what the real  
so what of all this is.
the Internet is a network of networks.  if someone builds a private  
network of some sort and then wants to have contact with the rest of  
the internet then some sort of gateway, or nat, or or other devie for  
joining dissimilar is put into place and the internet has grown again  
and encompassed more networks and more technologies.

and if someone really wants a private network, like so many  
corporations who have very tight firewalls etc, between them and the  
outside world or like some of these converged new telephone systems,  
so what?  stuff even gets through those firewalls, and i would  
contend that where there is the will traffic will get through.   
traffic will always get through.  and if somewhere it doesn't, and  
people want it to, some new bit of technology will come along to  
enable the traffic get through.  as for firewalls, it is not like  
they don't already exist.  and it isn't lke people aren't already  
finding ways around them.

in my eyes, naive though they be, the really cool thing about the  
Internet through its many years is how is absorbs most any other  
network or technology that rises up.  i see no reason why that should  
not continue to be the case.

i think that if Russia wants to spend its resources on developing a  
new infrastructure, good for them.  and at some point that new  
infrastructure will connect to the rest of the world's  
infrastructure.  and who knows maybe they will come up with some cool  
new technology.  and maybe some people who don't have access in  
Russia will get access.

a.



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


!DSPAM:2676,4710ea8686772336443459!

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Sat Oct 13 14:10:54 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:10:54 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <020c01c80dc1$6c39ddc0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <020c01c80dc1$6c39ddc0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <a0624083cc336b80bec30@[192.168.0.101]>

At 10:49 AM -0700 10/13/07, michael gurstein wrote:
>This reminds me of an experience I had in Russia a few years ago.
>
>I met with a research group in a smallish town outside of Moscow. They had been involved in theoretical physics but their research funding had disappeared and in its place they had begun to to do applied research in various areas including the Internet.
>
>They were using their local town (about 30,000 citizens) as a bit of test bed and what they had established was a coax based Local Area Network with a television feed which carried off the satellite television signals, (I presume pirated) games, local messaging/"email" (in cyrillics) and very limited access to the Internet on a pay per message basis... From what I could gather they were paying for one external Internet account for the entire town and then providing some sort of distributed access to this through their password protected local network...(before someone asks, let me say that I don't know how all of this was managed technically and I apologise in advance for any technical howlers I may have committed in my brief description here...
>
>All of this at very low cost (locally affordable) to the local citizens and evidently quite significant satisfaction since they reportedly had a significant proportion of the town attached to their network.
>
>I have no idea where this initiative has gone since I ran across it... (my understanding was that the group responsible were establishing similar such LAN electronic islands in various similarly sized communities throughout Russia...
>
>The example is interesting for me as a form of "community network" of course, but also I think in the context here as a way for creating thinly inter-connected nodes in the larger Internet including with the localized capacity to operate in whatever language script one wished with a "managed" interconnection between these localized islands and the larger Internet...(does this sound familiar to anyone...

In fact the history of the telephone, originally, follows just this pattern.

Local 'pools' of connectivity were, in time, aggregated into wider interconnection.  Starting with individual town telcos (still in Finland!)  In fact, a number of the world's telcos - what we know today as some of the largest corporations - started this way ...  Those familiar with the US know that there was a time when, to reach everyone, several, competing phone sets were required on each desk.  Aggregation comes only with time (though see third para).

Municipal broadband nets, today, are a modern outcropping.  When the rest of the society moves too slowly.  Seen widely around the world.  Or, local provision for wireless in some countries that you might tell us, Michael.

Fortunately, we learn.  The IDN now underpinning China and Russia, for instance, was designed from the beginning to interconnect with the rest of the world.

>
>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

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 veni at veni.com  Sat Oct 13 17:42:39 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:42:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
 <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
 <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>
Message-ID: <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>

At 13:27 10/13/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>At 3:37 PM -0400 10/12/07, veni markovski wrote:
> >this is one time when it is worth beleving what you see... AFTER 
> you check the facts.
>
>hmmm ... it appears that I don't know to check facts before I post.

I don't know if you know or not. You wrote "Attached is an 
authoritative translation.  Mr Putin has indeed sealed the 
matter.  Sources, Russian, impeccable, at the center of the work, can 
be supplied."

When you speak like that, and then in the translation we see that 
"government" = "sources in uniform", then certainly you need to check 
facts. Also, when you say what Mr. Putin is doing, it looks like you 
talked to him, and you can point to a statement of his - something, 
which I did, by the way, in my blog entry.

>This sort of insult is what make this list a pleasure and the dialog 
>effective ...

Oh, you are insulted? Sorry, didn't mean to make you feel that way. I 
actually used the same phrase you used ">This is one time when it is 
worth believing what you see ... " without meaning in particulary You 
by using "you". Hope that makes the dialog more effective - 
something, which you, I am sure, also intend.

>Yes, members of this list have been in touch with all of the above - 
>in fact over a protracted period (certainly also at ICANN meetings, 
>but hardly there as the main focus ...), working on the outcome 
>reported in the Russian article.

Do you mean, someone in this list actually inspired the article? That 
is, someone here is the "source in uniform", quoted in the article? 
Or I have misunderstood you. Because the outcome reported in the 
article is not the existance of some new, Russian, Internet. By the 
way, you may have seen that this was not the only article; it was 
reported in couple of more media, including one, which is not very 
friendly to Mr. Putin, that is, Mr. Kasparov's media 
(http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=46B080FD769E0). Btw, that 
same article talks about some manual of registration and 
administration of multilingual domains in Russian, Ukranian, 
Bulgarian and Belorussian languages. I am a Bulgarian, chairman of 
the Internet Society in the country, and somehow have not seen 
something like that developed, launched, or enacted. Perhaps you 
could bring some light here, based on your knowledge?

>No, I do not understand Russian, but the file had to transit my hard 
>drive, from Russia, to get to the post.

Oh, so let me make clear - you don't understand Russian, so you 
didn't know that the translation is not really precise, and while it 
quotes "governmental sources", it actually is based on some rumors, 
not on the official documents, which you could find on the Kremlin site?





Veni Markovski
http://www.veni.com

check also my blog:
http://blog.veni.com

The opinions expressed above are those of the author,
not of any organizations, associated with or related to
the author in any given way.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Oct 13 23:14:06 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:14:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>
> perhaps i have my naive glasses on again, but i wonder what the real
> so what of all this is.

The real "so what" is the attempt to realign communication patterns with nation-state institutions. Nation-states, to invoke the sociologist Max Weber, are territorial monopolies on the use of coercive force. This linkage is something we started to break out of to some extent with the de-monopolization of telecommunications, the global connectivity of the Internet and the rise of a transnational civil society. 

To view a network bounded by something as massive, centralized and coercive as the Chinese state or the Russian state as "just another private network" does strike me as naïve in the extreme. Particularly when both political entities attempt to integrate political, military, economic, technical and _linguistic_ considerations. 

Private networks are fine by me. We are not talking about private networks. We are talking about national networks (atavistic spectres from hell...) 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 10/13/2007 7:26 PM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Oct 13 23:39:43 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 23:39:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: venimarkovski at gmail.com [mailto:venimarkovski at gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Veni Markovski
> 
> I think it is more important for the Internet world the fact that .ru
> has an Accountability Framework agreement with ICANN, that www.rans.ru
> has good  working relations with ICANN, ISOC, ITU, and is now getting
> the information about the IETF ISOC's fellowships to the Russian
> engineers, etc.... than some article about something that someone has
> said.
> 
> Hope you'd agree on that.

I do agree that the development of stronger relationships between ICANN/ISOC/IETF and the Russian ccTLD manager and technical community is important. These ties, fellowships, etc. should be encouraged.

However, these linkages could easily be superseded or broken if they start to run counter to higher-level government, military and economic interests in specific nations. So I still think this article is a potentially significant signal. True, the sourcing of the smoke signals is flimsy as you point out, and from my many years of China-watching in the mid-1990s I am familiar with all the tricks. But that experience also teaches that where there is smoke there is sometimes a developing fire, so we need to be alert.

As you probably know, there is often a disjunction between the attitudes of more cosmopolitan professional communities (scientists and engineers, for example) and what plays politically in specific nations, especially authoritarian nations. 

A Ph.D. student here at Syracuse, YJ Park, has done a study about the way different countries participate in the ICANN regime. The pattern revealed by ccTLD managers' participation in ccNSO is quite different from the pattern of governments' participation in GAC. That paper will be presented at the GigaNet symposium Nov. 11th. 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 10/13/2007 7:26 PM
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Sun Oct 14 08:13:37 2007
From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:13:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] test, please, ignore
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20071014121334.47865337289@mxr.isoc.bg>

test,
please, ignore.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Sun Oct 14 08:00:43 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 08:00:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed
 u>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20071014120418.844933371A4@mxr.isoc.bg>

At 23:39 10/13/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>However, these linkages could easily be superseded or broken if they 
>start to run counter to higher-level government, military and 
>economic interests in specific nations.

The point here is that ICANN/IETF/etc. are developing the Internet as 
it is today; governments have freedom to choose to be part of this 
solution, or to stay outside, and just use what's drafter, accepted, 
and approved through the different processes. I can give  you an 
example: Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, which drafter 
the European Cybercrime Convention. When the Convention was ratified 
by 5 countries (now there are more), it started to act. Then the 
Russian President has ordered the Foreign Ministry to sign it, and 
the FM found out they don't like some of the texts. Guess what - it 
was too late to change them. So, while they could have participated 
in the drafting, they decided not to. When the other EU+ countries 
accepted it, Russia had no way to influence a change. I am sure 
that's a lesson they will remember, when they think about the next 
thing they will not participate in:-) That's why we all are making 
this outreach, and Russian engineers will start to go to IETF 
meetings, and they are already participating at ICANN meetings - 
because whether they go or not, decisions are being taken that 
influence the Russian users, and for the whole country is better to 
be part of this, rather than stay outside and just implement the standards.

>So I still think this article is a potentially significant signal. 
>True, the sourcing of the smoke signals is flimsy as you point out, 
>and from my many years of China-watching in the mid-1990s I am 
>familiar with all the tricks.

There are substential differences between China and Russia. One, 
would not make any conclusions on China, if he/she is having 
experience in Russia. I don't know how the other way works. If you 
say you understand the Russians because you understand the Chinese, 
then I have to admit I can't say I understand the Chinese based on my 
experience in Russia/East Europe.

Veni



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Sun Oct 14 09:17:56 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:17:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] CoE Recommendation
Message-ID: <20071014131834.7B4522BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>

I think this is an important document, vis-a-vis 
what we are discussing here, as it is driven also by the WSIS Tunis Agenda.

best,
Veni


Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)11
of the Committee of Ministers to member states
on promoting freedom of expression and information
in the new information and communications environment

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 26 September 2007
at the 1005th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of 
Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,

Reaffirming the commitment of member states to 
the fundamental right to freedom of expression 
and to receive and impart information and ideas 
without interference by public authorities and 
regardless of frontiers, as guaranteed by Article 
10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR, ETS No. 5);

Mindful of the potential impact, both positive 
and negative, that information and communication 
technologies and services can have on the 
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms in the information society and the 
particular roles and responsibilities of member 
states in securing the protection and promotion of those rights;

Underlining, in this connection, that the 
development of information and communication 
technologies and services should contribute to 
everyone▓s enjoyment of the rights guaranteed by 
Article 10 of the ECHR, for the benefit of each 
individual and the democratic culture of every society;

Recalling Recommendation No. R (99) 14 of the 
Committee of Ministers on universal community 
service concerning new communication and 
information services, which underlines the need 
to continually develop these services in order to 
further the right of everyone to express, to 
seek, to receive and to impart information and 
ideas, for the benefit of every individual and society as a whole;

Stressing the importance of free or affordable 
access to content and services in view of the 
convergence of the media and new communication 
service sectors and the emergence of common 
platforms and services between telecommunication 
operators, hardware and software manufacturers, 
print, electronic and new communication service 
outlets, Internet service providers and other 
next generation network operators;

Recalling the 2005 Declaration by the Committee 
of Ministers on human rights and the rule of law 
in the information society which recognises that 
limited or no access to information and 
communication technologies (ICTs) can deprive 
individuals of the ability to exercise fully 
their human rights and fundamental freedoms;

Recalling also Recommendation 
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec%282002%292&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75>Rec(2002)2 
of the Committee of Ministers on access to 
official documents and Recommendation No. R (81) 
19 of the Committee of Ministers on the access to 
information held by public authorities;

Aware that communication using new technologies 
and new information and communication services 
must respect the right to privacy and to secrecy 
of correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 of 
the ECHR and as elaborated by the case law of the 
European Court of Human Rights, as well as the 
Convention for the Protection of Individuals with 
regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data 
(ETS No. 108) and Recommendation No. R (99) 5 of 
the Committee of Ministers on the protection of privacy on the Internet;

Recalling the 2003 Declaration of the Committee 
of Ministers on freedom of communication on the 
Internet, which stresses that such freedom should 
not prejudice the human dignity or human rights 
and fundamental freedoms of others, especially children;

Recalling Recommendation 
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec%282001%298&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75>Rec(2001)8 
of the Committee of Ministers on self-regulation 
concerning cyber content (self-regulation and 
user protection against illegal or harmful 
content on new communications and information 
services) which encourages the neutral labelling 
of content to enable users to make their own 
value judgements over such content;

Recalling also Recommendation 
<https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec%282006%2912&Language=lanEnglish&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=9999CC&BackColorIntranet=FFBB55&BackColorLogged=FFAC75>Rec(2006)12 
of the Committee of Ministers on empowering 
children in the new information and 
communications environment, which underlines the 
importance for children to acquire the necessary 
skills to create, produce and distribute content 
and communications in a manner which is both 
respectful of the fundamental rights and freedoms 
of others and conducive to the exercise and 
enjoyment of their own fundamental rights;

Conscious of the risk of harm from content and 
behaviours in the new information and 
communications environment, which are capable of 
adversely affecting the physical, emotional and 
psychological well-being of children, such as 
online pornography, the portrayal and 
glorification of violence and self-harm, 
demeaning, discriminatory or racist expressions 
or apologia for such conduct, solicitation 
(grooming), bullying, stalking and other forms of harassment;

Recalling the importance of education for 
democratic citizenship which provides children 
and their educators with the necessary 
capabilities (knowledge, skills, understanding, 
attitudes, human rights values and behaviour) 
they need to live, actively participate and act 
responsibly while respecting the rights of 
others, as referred to in Recommendation 
<http://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec%282002%2912&Sector=secCM&Language=lanEnglish>Rec(2002)12 
of the Committee of Ministers on education for democratic citizenship;

Noting the outcome documents of the World Summit 
on the Information Society (Geneva, 2003 √ Tunis, 
2005) which refer to the important roles and 
importance of stakeholders in building the 
information society while fully respecting human 
rights and fundamental freedoms;

Aware that the actions and decisions of both 
state and non-state actors, in particular the 
private sector, can have an impact on the 
exercise and enjoyment of fundamental rights, 
such as freedom of expression and respect for 
human dignity in the information society;

Stressing the need for member states to 
constantly examine and review the legal and 
regulatory framework within which stakeholders 
operate, which impacts on the exercise and 
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Recommends that the governments of member states 
take all necessary measures to promote the full 
exercise and enjoyment of human rights and 
fundamental freedoms in the new information and 
communications environment, in particular the 
right to freedom of expression and information 
pursuant to Article 10 of the ECHR and the 
relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, by:

√ adopting common standards and strategies to implement these guidelines; and

√ bring these guidelines to the attention of all 
relevant stakeholders, in particular the private 
sector, civil society and the media so that they 
take all necessary measures to contribute to their implementation.

Guidelines

I. Empowering individual users

The constant evolution and change in the design 
and use of technologies and services challenges 
the ability of individual users to fully 
understand and exercise their rights and freedoms 
in the new information and communications 
environment. In this regard, the transparency in 
the processing and presentation of information as 
well as the provision of information, guidance 
and other forms of assistance are of paramount 
importance to their empowerment. Media education 
is of particular importance in this context.

Member states, the private sector and civil 
society are encouraged to develop common 
standards and strategies to promote transparency 
and the provision of information, guidance and 
assistance to the individual users of 
technologies and services, in particular in the following situations:

i. the monitoring of e-mail and usage of the 
Internet and the processing of personal data with 
regard to the right to private life and to secrecy of correspondence;

ii. determining the level of personal anonymity 
when using technologies and services with regard 
to the right to private life and to secrecy of correspondence;

iii. determining the level of personal security 
when using technologies and services with regard 
to the right to private life, to secrecy of 
correspondence and rule of law considerations;

iv. the profiling of user information and the 
retention of personal data by search engine and 
content providers with regard to the right to 
private life and secrecy of correspondence;

v. the listing and prioritisation of information 
provided by search engines with regard to the 
right to receive and impart information;

vi. the blocking of access to and filtering of 
content and services with regard to the right to 
receive and impart information;

vii. the removal of content deemed to be illegal 
with regard to the rule of law considerations;

viii. children▓s exposure to content and 
behaviours carrying a risk of harm with regard to 
human dignity, the rights of others and the right to private life;

ix. the production of user generated content and 
communications with regard to human dignity, the 
rights of others, and the right to private life.

II. Common standards and strategies for reliable 
information, flexible content creation and 
transparency in the processing of information

The speed, diversity and volume of content and 
communications circulating in the new information 
and communications environment can challenge the 
values and sensibilities of individuals. A fair 
balance should be struck between the right to 
express freely and to impart information in this 
new environment and respect for human dignity and 
the rights of others, bearing in mind that the 
right to freedom of expression may be subject to 
formalities, conditions and restrictions in order to ensure proportionality.

In this connection, the private sector and member 
states are encouraged to develop common standards 
and strategies regarding the following:

i. the rating and labelling of content and 
services carrying a risk of harm and carrying no 
risk of harm especially those in relation to children;

ii. the rating, labelling and transparency of 
filtering mechanisms which are specifically designed for children;

iii. the creation of interactive content and its 
distribution between users (for example 
peer-to-peer networks and blogs) while respecting 
the legitimate interests of right-holders to 
protect their intellectual property rights;

iv. the labelling and standards for the logging 
and processing of personal data.

III. Affordable access to ICT infrastructure

The new information and communications 
environment has become an essential tool in the 
lives of many individuals to live and work and to 
exercise their rights and freedoms fully. 
Affordable access to ICT infrastructure is 
therefore a prerequisite for affordable access to 
the Internet, thereby helping to bridge the 
digital divide, in order to maximise the 
enjoyment of these rights and freedoms.

In this connection, member states, in 
co-operation with the private sector and civil 
society, are encouraged to promote and enhance 
access to ICT infrastructure by:

i. creating an enabling environment that is 
attractive for the private sector to invest in 
ICT infrastructure and services, including a 
stable legal and regulatory framework;

ii. facilitating and promoting community based networks;

iii. facilitating policies and partnerships which 
promote the qualitative and quantitative 
development of ICT infrastructure with a view to 
ensuring universal and affordable access to the Internet;

iv. reviewing and creating universal service 
obligations, taking into account, inter alia, 
converging next generation networks.

IV. Access to information as a public service

The Internet is increasingly important in 
facilitating the lives of many individuals who 
use and depend upon public services. Access to 
the new information and communications 
environment facilitates the exercise of their 
rights and freedoms, in particular their 
participation in public life and democratic processes.

In this connection member states should:

i. facilitate policies and partnerships which 
promote the installation of Internet access 
points on the premises of public authorities and, 
where appropriate, in other public places. These 
Internet access points should be open to all 
users, including those with special needs;

ii. ensure that public authorities increase the 
provision and transparency of their online 
services to citizens and businesses so that they 
allow every individual access to public information;

iii. ensure that public authorities offer a range 
of online public services in appropriate language 
scripts (for example, in non-ASCII characters) 
which accords with common standards (for example, 
the guidelines of the Web Accessibility Initiative).

V. Co-operation between stakeholders

For individuals to fully exercise and enjoy their 
rights and freedoms in the new information and 
communications environment, in particular the 
right to freedom of expression and information 
and the right to private life and secrecy of 
correspondence, it is of paramount importance 
that member states, the private sector and civil 
society develop various forms of 
multi-stakeholder co-operation and partnerships, 
taking into account their respective roles and responsibilities.

In this connection, member states are encouraged to:

i. engage in regular dialogue with all relevant 
stakeholders with a view to elaborating and 
delineating the boundaries of their respective 
roles and responsibilities with regard to freedom 
of expression and information and other human rights;

ii. elaborate, where appropriate, and in 
co-operation with other stakeholders, a clear 
legal framework on the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders;

iii. ensure that complementary regulatory systems 
such as new forms of co-regulation and 
self-regulation respond adequately to the changes 
in technological development and are fully 
compatible with the respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The private sector should be encouraged to:

i. acknowledge and familiarise itself with its 
evolving ethical roles and responsibilities, and 
to co-operate in reviewing and, where necessary, 
adjusting their key actions and decisions which 
impact on individuals rights and freedoms;

ii. develop, where appropriate, new forms of 
open, transparent and accountable self-regulation.

Civil society, including institutions of higher 
education and the media, should be encouraged to 
monitor the ethical and social consequences of 
the actions and decisions of stakeholders and 
their compatibility with human rights and the 
rule of law, raise public awareness of those 
stakeholders who do not act responsibly, and 
assist those individuals and groups of 
individuals whose rights and freedoms have been 
adversely affected, in particular by addressing the stakeholders concerned.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071014/ec9b1eb9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071014/ec9b1eb9/attachment.txt>

From lists at privaterra.info  Sun Oct 14 09:48:07 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:48:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] CoE Recommendation (Flawed Document)
In-Reply-To: <20071014131834.7B4522BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
References: <20071014131834.7B4522BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
Message-ID: <C413A822-155D-4F09-B80C-28D84FD297AB@privaterra.info>

On 14-Oct-07, at 9:17 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
> I think this is an important document, vis-a-vis what we are  
> discussing here, as it is driven also by the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
>

Veni:

The document you mentioned is - flawed !

There are serious issues with the document - one that the Freedom of  
Expression community is concerned about. Further details are  
available below & on the EDRI website.


EDRI Campaign on CoE Recommendation Failing to Uphold Freedom of  
Expression
10 October, 2007
http://www.edri.org/coerec200711


On October 10, 2007, EDRI issued a statement to express its serious  
concerns over a new Council of Europe Recommendation on 'promoting  
freedom of expression and information in the new information and  
communications
environment'.

As other related instruments are currently in preparation by the CoE,  
EDRI calls for NGOs and groups from all over the world to sign up in  
support of EDRI statement and take further action to help avoid the  
risk of more damages to freedom of expression and information in the  
online world.

Read EDRI Statement and Act Now to Protect Freedom of Expression Online:
- EDRI Statement: 'New Council of Europe Recommendation fails to  
uphold online
freedom of expression' (also available in PDF, Français)
- Sign up in support to this EDRI statement (NGOs and groups from non  
CoE member States also welcome)
- Spread the word to other NGOs and groups
- Translate the statement into your other languages and inform EDRI  
of availability of translations
- Use background information to know more about this issue and raise
awareness in your own country
- Take part in the CoE consultation on a possible future mechanism  
for promoting respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on  
Human Rights, to ensure that such a mechanism also covers freedom of  
expression online ('Civil society and media professional  
organisations' views welcome on possible Article 10 monitoring  
mechanism'
- Ask to join MC-S-IS working group as observer (contact EDRI for
information)
- Know more about EDRI

New Council of Europe Recommendation fails to uphold online freedom  
of expression
European Digital Rights Statement and Call for Action - 10 October 2007

European Digital Rights (EDRI) wishes to express its serious concerns  
over the adoption on 26 September 2007 by the Council of Europe (CoE)  
Committee of Ministers of a new Recommendation on 'promoting freedom  
of expression and information in the new information and  
communications environment' (Rec(2007)11).

The Recommendation has been prepared by the Council of Europe Group  
of Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S-IS).  
It has been proposed and discussed by members of this group since  
December 2005. It was originally intended to be an instrument to  
'further elaborate principles and guidelines to ensure respect for  
human rights and the rule of law in the information society'. The  
text eventually turned into a set of 'guidelines on the ethical roles  
and responsibilities for key state and non-state actors', to be  
promoted through this Recommendation by the Council of Europe. Its  
final draft has further been amended by the Steering Committee on the  
Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), under which authority  
the MC-S-IS operates, and then submitted to the Committee of Ministers.

EDRI participated in the debate in its capacity of independent non- 
governmental observer to the MC-S-I-S group, without the right to  
vote. However, few EDRI's contributions, either during meetings or  
through written comments and proposed amendments, were taken into  
account in the final document.

We consider the result to be promoting opaque "self-regulation" and  
other soft law instruments driven by private interests and  
implemented through technical mechanisms. As a result, we have great  
concern that the Recommendation will fail to uphold respect for  
freedom of expression and information in the online world.

The Recommendation also raises specific concerns, most notably over  
its part II ('Common standards and strategies for reliable  
information, flexible content creation and transparency in the  
processing of information').

It refers to 'reliable information' or content and this is little  
different from the "official information" of the bad old days. It is  
hardly compatible with the promotion of freedom of expression and  
information, which is the purpose of this document.

Moreover, this section calls for balancing freedom of expression and  
communication with the rights of others to have their 'values and  
sensibilities' respected. As "values and sensibilities" vary not only  
from time to time and from place to place, but also among different  
sections of the population, this is certainly against the general CoE  
background, and in any case goes far beyond the restrictions  
identified in Article 10 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on  
Human Rights, as stressed by the jurisprudence of the European Court  
of Human Rights numerous times.

Furthermore, and in order to strike such a balance, section II of the  
Recommendation calls for the development by the private sector and  
member States of tools and standards for the rating and labelling of  
content and services.
EDRI regrets that the CoE encourages such trend over transparent and  
accountable public policies as well as binding legislation respectful  
of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.

EDRI considers this Recommendation to be damaging and a retrograde  
step for freedom of expression and freedom of the press. EDRI is  
deeply concerned that such instruments will be used to legitimize  
subtle means of censorship, through privatised censorship and  
measures to protect against so-called harmful content.

EDRI will continue to participate to the MC-S-I-S group as an active  
independent observer, and will continue to raise awareness of the  
public on issues related to the group mandate. With other instruments  
being prepared by the same MC-S-I-S group, there is a risk that the  
trend shown in this Recommendation be confirmed. To better avoid such  
a risk, EDRI needs your support.


Background information:

CoE instruments resulting from the MC-S-IS group activities:

- Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2007)11 on promoting freedom  
of expression and information in the new information and  
communications environment (26.09.2007):
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2007)11

- Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2006)12 on empowering children  
in the new information and communications environment (27.09.2006):
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2006)12

- Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Human Rights in the  
Information Society (MC-S-IS)website:
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co% 
2Doperation/MC-S-IS/

- Council of Europe Steering Committee on the Media and New  
Communication Services (CDMC) website:
http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co% 
2Doperation/CDMC/

EDRI activities in relation with the CoE:

- EDRI report on European regional meeting on the "Ethical dimensions  
of the information society" organized by the French Commission for  
UNESCO in cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of Europe ('Human  
Rights in the Information Society - rediscover the proportionality',  
26.09.2007)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.18/human-rights-is

- EDRI report on 7th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE to address the impact of  
technical measures on human rights', 12.04.2007):
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.7/coe-human-rights

- EDRI report on 5th MC-S-IS meeting ('News on CoE activities on  
Human Rights in the Information Society', 05.07.2006)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/hrinfosoc

- EDRI report on 4th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE works on new instrument on  
children empowerment on the net', 15.03.2006):
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe

- EDRI report on 2nd MC-S-IS meeting and CoE Pan-European Forum  
('Human Rights In The Information Society On CoE Agenda', 21.09.2005):
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/CoE

- EDRI gets observer status to MC-S-IS group ('EDRI Granted Observer  
Status In CoE HR Group', 29.06.2005):
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/EDRI

- EDRI comments on CAHSI Document ('Council Of Europe Declaration On  
Human Rights And Internet', 24.05.2005):
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.10/CoE

- EDRI report on 2nd meeting of the Multidisciplinary Ad-hoc  
Committee of Experts on the Information Society (CAHSI) ('Council Of  
Europe Draft Statement On Human Rights And Internet', 20.04.2005)
http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE


About EDRI:

European Digital Rights is an international non-profit association  
(AISBL) under Belgium law founded in June 2002. Its goals include the  
defence and promotion of human rights in the field of information and  
communication technology. EDRI takes an active interest in  
developments regarding these subjects in all 45 member States of the  
Council of Europe. Currently 28 privacy and civil rights  
organisations have EDRI membership. They are based or have offices in  
17 different countries in Europe. Since January 2003, EDRI produces  
EDRI-gram, a bi-weekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe.

For more information: www.edri.org.

General contact:
board at edri.org. Press contact: press at edri.org.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Oct 14 10:08:45 2007
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 16:08:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] CoE Recommendation (Flawed Document)
In-Reply-To: <C413A822-155D-4F09-B80C-28D84FD297AB@privaterra.info>
References: <20071014131834.7B4522BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> <C413A822-155D-4F09-B80C-28D84FD297AB@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <165F4E58-F902-4A31-937E-A58830E3B67A@ras.eu.org>

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your vigilance:) It's true that Veni's message may be  
confusing, in that it qualifies the document as "important", which  
doesn't mean good or bad in his opinion, but probably simply means  
that Veni wants to start a new thread on this list:)))

I've myself already posted some days ago on this list EDRI (European  
Digital Rights) Statement and call for signatures in support of  
EDRI's statement, with all the necessary background information.

I'm now pleased to announce that this EDRI document has been made  
available by two EDRI members in two other languages:
French: http://www.iris.sgdg.org/info-debat/EDRI-coerec200711-fr.html
Spanish: http://blog.pangea.cat/blog.php/pangea/edri/2007/10/12/edri- 
cde-2007-11
English (original) still at: http://www.edri.org/coerec200711
German, Italian and Czech versions are expected soon from other EDRI  
members.

So please disseminate in your networks and join in (NGOs and groups)  
signing in support to EDRI statement. First list of signatories will  
be published next week.

Best,
Meryem

Le 14 oct. 07 à 15:48, Robert Guerra a écrit :

> On 14-Oct-07, at 9:17 AM, Veni Markovski wrote:
>> I think this is an important document, vis-a-vis what we are  
>> discussing here, as it is driven also by the WSIS Tunis Agenda.
>>
>
> Veni:
>
> The document you mentioned is - flawed !
>
> There are serious issues with the document - one that the Freedom  
> of Expression community is concerned about. Further details are  
> available below & on the EDRI website.
>
>
> EDRI Campaign on CoE Recommendation Failing to Uphold Freedom of  
> Expression
> 10 October, 2007
> http://www.edri.org/coerec200711
>
>
> On October 10, 2007, EDRI issued a statement to express its serious  
> concerns over a new Council of Europe Recommendation on 'promoting  
> freedom of expression and information in the new information and  
> communications
> environment'.
>
> As other related instruments are currently in preparation by the  
> CoE, EDRI calls for NGOs and groups from all over the world to sign  
> up in support of EDRI statement and take further action to help  
> avoid the risk of more damages to freedom of expression and  
> information in the online world.
>
> Read EDRI Statement and Act Now to Protect Freedom of Expression  
> Online:
> - EDRI Statement: 'New Council of Europe Recommendation fails to  
> uphold online
> freedom of expression' (also available in PDF, Français)
> - Sign up in support to this EDRI statement (NGOs and groups from  
> non CoE member States also welcome)
> - Spread the word to other NGOs and groups
> - Translate the statement into your other languages and inform EDRI  
> of availability of translations
> - Use background information to know more about this issue and raise
> awareness in your own country
> - Take part in the CoE consultation on a possible future mechanism  
> for promoting respect of Article 10 of the European Convention on  
> Human Rights, to ensure that such a mechanism also covers freedom  
> of expression online ('Civil society and media professional  
> organisations' views welcome on possible Article 10 monitoring  
> mechanism'
> - Ask to join MC-S-IS working group as observer (contact EDRI for
> information)
> - Know more about EDRI
>
> New Council of Europe Recommendation fails to uphold online freedom  
> of expression
> European Digital Rights Statement and Call for Action - 10 October  
> 2007
>
> European Digital Rights (EDRI) wishes to express its serious  
> concerns over the adoption on 26 September 2007 by the Council of  
> Europe (CoE) Committee of Ministers of a new Recommendation on  
> 'promoting freedom of expression and information in the new  
> information and communications environment' (Rec(2007)11).
>
> The Recommendation has been prepared by the Council of Europe Group  
> of Specialists on Human Rights in the Information Society (MC-S- 
> IS). It has been proposed and discussed by members of this group  
> since December 2005. It was originally intended to be an instrument  
> to 'further elaborate principles and guidelines to ensure respect  
> for human rights and the rule of law in the information society'.  
> The text eventually turned into a set of 'guidelines on the ethical  
> roles and responsibilities for key state and non-state actors', to  
> be promoted through this Recommendation by the Council of Europe.  
> Its final draft has further been amended by the Steering Committee  
> on the Media and New Communication Services (CDMC), under which  
> authority the MC-S-IS operates, and then submitted to the Committee  
> of Ministers.
>
> EDRI participated in the debate in its capacity of independent non- 
> governmental observer to the MC-S-I-S group, without the right to  
> vote. However, few EDRI's contributions, either during meetings or  
> through written comments and proposed amendments, were taken into  
> account in the final document.
>
> We consider the result to be promoting opaque "self-regulation" and  
> other soft law instruments driven by private interests and  
> implemented through technical mechanisms. As a result, we have  
> great concern that the Recommendation will fail to uphold respect  
> for freedom of expression and information in the online world.
>
> The Recommendation also raises specific concerns, most notably over  
> its part II ('Common standards and strategies for reliable  
> information, flexible content creation and transparency in the  
> processing of information').
>
> It refers to 'reliable information' or content and this is little  
> different from the "official information" of the bad old days. It  
> is hardly compatible with the promotion of freedom of expression  
> and information, which is the purpose of this document.
>
> Moreover, this section calls for balancing freedom of expression  
> and communication with the rights of others to have their 'values  
> and sensibilities' respected. As "values and sensibilities" vary  
> not only from time to time and from place to place, but also among  
> different sections of the population, this is certainly against the  
> general CoE background, and in any case goes far beyond the  
> restrictions identified in Article 10 paragraph 2 of the European  
> Convention on Human Rights, as stressed by the jurisprudence of the  
> European Court of Human Rights numerous times.
>
> Furthermore, and in order to strike such a balance, section II of  
> the Recommendation calls for the development by the private sector  
> and member States of tools and standards for the rating and  
> labelling of content and services.
> EDRI regrets that the CoE encourages such trend over transparent  
> and accountable public policies as well as binding legislation  
> respectful of fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.
>
> EDRI considers this Recommendation to be damaging and a retrograde  
> step for freedom of expression and freedom of the press. EDRI is  
> deeply concerned that such instruments will be used to legitimize  
> subtle means of censorship, through privatised censorship and  
> measures to protect against so-called harmful content.
>
> EDRI will continue to participate to the MC-S-I-S group as an  
> active independent observer, and will continue to raise awareness  
> of the public on issues related to the group mandate. With other  
> instruments being prepared by the same MC-S-I-S group, there is a  
> risk that the trend shown in this Recommendation be confirmed. To  
> better avoid such a risk, EDRI needs your support.
>
>
> Background information:
>
> CoE instruments resulting from the MC-S-IS group activities:
>
> - Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2007)11 on promoting freedom  
> of expression and information in the new information and  
> communications environment (26.09.2007):
> https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2007)11
>
> - Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2006)12 on empowering  
> children in the new information and communications environment  
> (27.09.2006):
> https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=Rec(2006)12
>
> - Council of Europe Group of Specialists on Human Rights in the  
> Information Society (MC-S-IS)website:
> http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co% 
> 2Doperation/MC-S-IS/
>
> - Council of Europe Steering Committee on the Media and New  
> Communication Services (CDMC) website:
> http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/media/1_intergovernmental_co% 
> 2Doperation/CDMC/
>
> EDRI activities in relation with the CoE:
>
> - EDRI report on European regional meeting on the "Ethical  
> dimensions of the information society" organized by the French  
> Commission for UNESCO in cooperation with UNESCO and the Council of  
> Europe ('Human Rights in the Information Society - rediscover the  
> proportionality', 26.09.2007)
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.18/human-rights-is
>
> - EDRI report on 7th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE to address the impact of  
> technical measures on human rights', 12.04.2007):
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.7/coe-human-rights
>
> - EDRI report on 5th MC-S-IS meeting ('News on CoE activities on  
> Human Rights in the Information Society', 05.07.2006)
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.13/hrinfosoc
>
> - EDRI report on 4th MC-S-IS meeting ('CoE works on new instrument  
> on children empowerment on the net', 15.03.2006):
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number4.5/coe
>
> - EDRI report on 2nd MC-S-IS meeting and CoE Pan-European Forum  
> ('Human Rights In The Information Society On CoE Agenda', 21.09.2005):
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.19/CoE
>
> - EDRI gets observer status to MC-S-IS group ('EDRI Granted  
> Observer Status In CoE HR Group', 29.06.2005):
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.13/EDRI
>
> - EDRI comments on CAHSI Document ('Council Of Europe Declaration  
> On Human Rights And Internet', 24.05.2005):
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.10/CoE
>
> - EDRI report on 2nd meeting of the Multidisciplinary Ad-hoc  
> Committee of Experts on the Information Society (CAHSI) ('Council  
> Of Europe Draft Statement On Human Rights And Internet', 20.04.2005)
> http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number3.8/CoE
>
>
> About EDRI:
>
> European Digital Rights is an international non-profit association  
> (AISBL) under Belgium law founded in June 2002. Its goals include  
> the defence and promotion of human rights in the field of  
> information and communication technology. EDRI takes an active  
> interest in developments regarding these subjects in all 45 member  
> States of the Council of Europe. Currently 28 privacy and civil  
> rights organisations have EDRI membership. They are based or have  
> offices in 17 different countries in Europe. Since January 2003,  
> EDRI produces EDRI-gram, a bi-weekly newsletter about digital civil  
> rights in Europe.
>
> For more information: www.edri.org.
>
> General contact:
> board at edri.org. Press contact: press at edri.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 mueller at syr.edu  Sun Oct 14 11:44:13 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 11:44:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /  internet
In-Reply-To: <20071014120418.844933371A4@mxr.isoc.bg>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <470fec48.271d640a.22e7.3781@mx.google.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589D6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2aa69fe40710130311x25b059d9o43f0dd074fff90bc@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589ED@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071014120418.844933371A4@mxr.isoc.bg>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589FA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com]
> experience in Russia. I don't know how the other way works. If you
> say you understand the Russians because you understand the Chinese,
> then I have to admit I can't say I understand the Chinese based on my
> experience in Russia/East Europe.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that when closed counties start to open up or release information a cottage industry develops around gathering and interpreting the scraps of information that come out. 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date: 10/14/2007 9:22 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 nne75 at yahoo.com  Sun Oct 14 13:36:36 2007
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] National network/ Individual rights to privacy and freedom of expression
Message-ID: <336688.49268.qm@web50212.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Dear all

Been following on the two last trends.  Just a quick question here:  Is Russia on the way to creating a National Network as a parallel one or another as REPLACEMENT to the www on  a national level?

If it is a parallel, will Russians be allowed to choose either to go national or universal?  If it leans on a replacement, what other options will there be for individuals, communities who would want an OPEN MODEL on a universal level?

Just wondering..  because the ''American factor'' is not only a Russian thing...


Nnenna

----- Original Message ----
From: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
To: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 9:44:13 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /  internet




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni at veni.com]
> experience in Russia. I don't know how the other way works. If you
> say you understand the Russians because you understand the Chinese,
> then I have to admit I can't say I understand the Chinese based on my
> experience in Russia/East Europe.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that when closed
 counties start to open up or release information a cottage industry
 develops around gathering and interpreting the scraps of information that
 come out. 



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.10/1070 - Release Date:
 10/14/2007 9:22 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






       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071014/53f77e76/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071014/53f77e76/attachment.txt>

From avri at psg.com  Sun Oct 14 14:03:06 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 14:03:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5EFF8FCD-7471-47C9-9E10-2F746B6CFF67@psg.com>

hi,

i dislike the notion of nation states as much as anyone (as you  
probably already know), but the world is organised that way and a lot  
of people seem to favor that form of organisation.  your claim that  
certain states are coercive is certainly true, though i am not sure  
we would necessarily come up with the same list of 'bad guys.'  there  
are, after all, many different forms of coercion.

my point is that coersive states aside i have  a firm belief that any  
network anyone builds will eventually be folded into, or at least  
gated to, the Internet.  bringing together the diverse networks of,  
now, diverse people is what the Internet is about in my opinion  and  
I don't think anyone can stop that for very long.  no matter what  
they do.  and i also believe that the more network infrastructure is  
rolled out, the better.  hey, i even think corporate networks serve a  
purpose in the growth of the Internet beyond the motive for 'demon  
profit' despite the fact that they create so many firewalls and  
walled gardens an help others do the same.

a.


On 13 okt 2007, at 23.14, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>
>> perhaps i have my naive glasses on again, but i wonder what the real
>> so what of all this is.
>
> The real "so what" is the attempt to realign communication patterns  
> with nation-state institutions. Nation-states, to invoke the  
> sociologist Max Weber, are territorial monopolies on the use of  
> coercive force. This linkage is something we started to break out  
> of to some extent with the de-monopolization of telecommunications,  
> the global connectivity of the Internet and the rise of a  
> transnational civil society.
>
> To view a network bounded by something as massive, centralized and  
> coercive as the Chinese state or the Russian state as "just another  
> private network" does strike me as naïve in the extreme.  
> Particularly when both political entities attempt to integrate  
> political, military, economic, technical and _linguistic_  
> considerations.
>
> Private networks are fine by me. We are not talking about private  
> networks. We are talking about national networks (atavistic  
> spectres from hell...)
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date:  
> 10/13/2007 7:26 PM
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dan at musicunbound.com  Mon Oct 15 00:17:39 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:17:39 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
 internet
In-Reply-To: <5EFF8FCD-7471-47C9-9E10-2F746B6CFF67@psg.com>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <C12BBEBE-18CA-43D7-9BD4-3E7CB2D42133@psg.com>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <5EFF8FCD-7471-47C9-9E10-2F746B6CFF67@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06230910c33897aa170f@[10.0.1.3]>

I think what Milton meant with regard to national monopolies on coercion
was simply in reference to legal jurisdiction, not to styles of enforcement
behavior.

The U.S. government has a monopoly on creating, adjudicating and enforcing
laws in the U.S.  Law enforcement is coercive, whatever way one looks at
it.  Even if one is just talking about a parking ticket, it is the coercive
force of municipal police (which is granted by the particular state, which
is carved out from federal power in the constitution) that causes the
violator to pay the fine or go to jail.

Coercion need not be Draconian or even "unfair" to be coercive (when it is
"fair" it is intended to coerce criminals and civil violators).  But it
does point to an authority to force citizens to "behave" in whatever way
that manifests itself.

All states have coercive power over all of their own citizens, exercised by
their various law enforcement organizations; in some sense that is what
they are *there* for in the first place.  How they use that power differs
according to governmental structures and cultural norms, but they all have
(or delegate on a discretionary and recallable basis) ultimate coercive
power (or else the state is in political crisis).

The rule of law means absolutely nothing in a political sense without a
supreme coercive authority to enforce it.

Dan



At 2:03 PM -0400 10/14/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>i dislike the notion of nation states as much as anyone (as you
>probably already know), but the world is organised that way and a lot
>of people seem to favor that form of organisation.  your claim that
>certain states are coercive is certainly true, though i am not sure
>we would necessarily come up with the same list of 'bad guys.'  there
>are, after all, many different forms of coercion.
>
>my point is that coersive states aside i have  a firm belief that any
>network anyone builds will eventually be folded into, or at least
>gated to, the Internet.  bringing together the diverse networks of,
>now, diverse people is what the Internet is about in my opinion  and
>I don't think anyone can stop that for very long.  no matter what
>they do.  and i also believe that the more network infrastructure is
>rolled out, the better.  hey, i even think corporate networks serve a
>purpose in the growth of the Internet beyond the motive for 'demon
>profit' despite the fact that they create so many firewalls and
>walled gardens an help others do the same.
>
>a.
>
>
>On 13 okt 2007, at 23.14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>>
>>> perhaps i have my naive glasses on again, but i wonder what the real
>>> so what of all this is.
>>
>> The real "so what" is the attempt to realign communication patterns
>> with nation-state institutions. Nation-states, to invoke the
>> sociologist Max Weber, are territorial monopolies on the use of
>> coercive force. This linkage is something we started to break out
>> of to some extent with the de-monopolization of telecommunications,
>> the global connectivity of the Internet and the rise of a
>> transnational civil society.
>>
>> To view a network bounded by something as massive, centralized and
>> coercive as the Chinese state or the Russian state as "just another
>> private network" does strike me as naïve in the extreme.
>> Particularly when both political entities attempt to integrate
>> political, military, economic, technical and _linguistic_
>> considerations.
>>
>> Private networks are fine by me. We are not talking about private
>> networks. We are talking about national networks (atavistic
>> spectres from hell...)
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date:
>> 10/13/2007 7:26 PM
>>
>>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Oct 15 14:16:17 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:16:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710151116l2ff9d892qb3369f3b980534bd@mail.gmail.com>

Been on holiday, hence the delay in my reply:

On 10/7/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>
>
>
>
> it s also true that there is routing policy that is instantiated in these
> tables and some of it has to do with financial and political considerations
> - who will be allowed to transit a particular network is often a business
> and/or political decision.
>
>
>
> Exactly. More fundamentally, there are a host of contractual, legal and
> financial incentives that govern how and why people route the way they do.
> Those arrangements are affected by public policy, sometimes directly
> sometimes indirectly. The fact that technical people are often unaware of
> these environmental factors doesn't mean they don't exist and are not
> important.

To clear up another misconception, the folk who decide on routing
policy are FULLY aware of the "environmental factors".  These decisons
are not technical in nature, but mostly economic/financial.


>
>
>
>
>
> but having said that, i certainly don't find myself in favor of some sort of
> top down policy control for these essentially local policy decisions.    and
> the idea of some regulatory entity having something to say about routing
> policy is somewhat frightening.
>
>
>
>
> Anyone who knows my politics knows that I wouldn't' favor "top-down
> regulation" either. But we do have regulatory agencies that "have something
> to say about routing policy" – they are called Regional Internet Registries
> (RIRs). (I hope we don't now have a useless conversation about whether RIRs
> are policy making entities or not.)

RIR communities do make policy, but NOT routing policies.  RIRs are
all clear in that they do NOT guarantee routability of any address
space they allocate or assign.

The way RIRs allocate addresses has a
> lot to do with how routing takes place, doesn't it?

not really, let's take them one by one:

> Block size,

A /24 is routed the same way a /8 is routed, with BGP4 (usually), so
no difference there.

imposition
> of route aggregation constraints,

AFAIK, RIRs don't impose routing aggregation constraints, although
they DO keep aggregation in mind whenever possible when making
allocations.

> and the need to register addresses with
> RIRs all have some kind of impact.

In the RIRs I am familiar with, if it's an allocation or a PI
(End-User) assignment, the RIR does the registration in the RIR
Database.  LIRs do enter PA assignments in the appropriate RIR Db, and
these can be routed by an entity that is NOT the LIR, but this
requires an entry in a Routing Registry (not neccesarily the same as
an RIR).  In other words, it's difficult to route a PA assignment
block that is NOT registered in an RIR Db, but this is the task of an
LIR, NOT an RIR.

 The whole decision whether to create RIRs
> and what region qualifies for one would be a simple example of a decision
> that would have a major effect on routing policy.

Why? With the birth of the two newest RIRs folk building filters just
have two more databases for their scripts to query.  I don't see any
"major effects".  Maybe you can ask the folk at Syracuse if they have
had to change their routing policies since LACNIC and AfriNIC came
into existence?

>
>
> More generally, it is not inconceivable that there might be institutional
> decisions made at the national or global regarding liability, security,
> address transferability, police surveillance, contracting, consumer
> protection, etc. that could either facilitate the coordination of routes, or
> make the process worse.
>
>

I guess it's concievable, `i just can't see the IGF making these decisions.

>
> I am eager to explore these issues. Unfortunately, it's all too rare to find
> people like Karl Auerbach or Avri – technical people who are nevertheless
> willing to think about the economic and political aspects of the technical
> decision making.

As above, routing is mostly an economic decision, the technical is
just the implementation.

-- 
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 Oct 15 17:18:40 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:18:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: National network/ Individual rights to privacy and freedom of
 expression
In-Reply-To: <336688.49268.qm@web50212.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <336688.49268.qm@web50212.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <a06240854c33982a702aa@[192.168.0.101]>

As with national efforts, there will be several facets.  And some of them will shape only as they go.

What we know about IDNs can fill in the picture, for that part.  And we do not have to wait to see, but know now how that will work.  Rather than replace or work in parallel, the IDN will give the local user the ability to reach web sites using Cyrillic script.  That is for the full address in the browser bar, including the last tld part of the web address.  So the everyday user is not denied access.

The neat part is that this new Cyrillic root interoperates seamlessly with the Roman-character root.  If a page request comes in for .com, .net, .org, etc, in the Roman characters that we use, that simply passes off to what we think of today as the root.

So you can see this as an extension, one that removes this part as a barrier for many tens of millions, who otherwise could not.  But in the best sense of extension, it just builds on what is already there, continuing what is in place but expanding possibilities - dramatically.

David

At 10:36 AM -0700 10/14/07, Nnenna wrote:
>Dear all
>
>Been following on the two last trends.  Just a quick question here:  Is Russia on the way to creating a National Network as a parallel one or another as REPLACEMENT to the www on  a national level?
>
>If it is a parallel, will Russians be allowed to choose either to go national or universal?  If it leans on a replacement, what other options will there be for individuals, communities who would want an OPEN MODEL on a universal level?
>
>Just wondering..  because the ''American factor'' is not only a Russian thing...
>
>Nnenna
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 16 10:38:45 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:38:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0710151116l2ff9d892qb3369f3b980534bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710011434v28aa7f92qa3f4cc8101edb798@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0710151116l2ff9d892qb3369f3b980534bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58A9F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> To clear up another misconception, the folk who decide on routing
> policy are FULLY aware of the "environmental factors".  These decisons
> are not technical in nature, but mostly economic/financial.

Yes, indeed. So that's cleared up. I will let the other readers decide who was suffering from the initial "misconception." Just a word to the wise: where there's economic/financial considerations at stake, there's public policy, too.

> A /24 is routed the same way a /8 is routed, with BGP4 (usually), so
> no difference there.

I don't have time to clear up this misconception. Let's just say that the decision about who gets a /8 and who gets a /24 has something to do with routing as well as address conservation.

> AFAIK, RIRs don't impose routing aggregation constraints, although

Interesting, a few years ago I was told that if we had any competition among RIRs we would instantly lose all route aggregation....

> they DO keep aggregation in mind whenever possible when making
> allocations.

Hmm, so would you say that "The way RIRs allocate addresses has a lot to do with how routing takes place"? ;-)

> > and the need to register addresses with
> > RIRs all have some kind of impact.
> 
> In the RIRs I am familiar with, if it's an allocation or a PI
> (End-User) assignment, the RIR does the registration in the RIR
> Database.  LIRs do enter PA assignments in the appropriate RIR Db, and
> these can be routed by an entity that is NOT the LIR, but this
> requires an entry in a Routing Registry (not neccesarily the same as
> an RIR).  In other words, it's difficult to route a PA assignment
> block that is NOT registered in an RIR Db, but this is the task of an
> LIR, NOT an RIR.

To shorten what you say above, "the need to register addresses with RIRs has some kind of impact on routing."

This is yet another one of those bizarre McTim exchanges in which you essentially confirm what I asserted but nevertheless insist that you are disagreeing with me. Hope you enjoyed it.

> Why? With the birth of the two newest RIRs folk building filters just
> have two more databases for their scripts to query.  I don't see any
> "major effects".  Maybe you can ask the folk at Syracuse if they have

Tell me: what reason is there to create a RIR? Does it contribute to route aggregation or not? A simple yes or no on that last question would suffice.

> had to change their routing policies since LACNIC and AfriNIC came
> into existence?

I am sure they did not. But that was not my point. Do you think Latin American and African ISPs changed their routing policies?

> I guess it's concievable, `i just can't see the IGF making these
> decisions.

IGF doesn't make any decisions. IGF talks about things. Are you still looking for the UN-takes-over-the-Internet bogeyman under your bed? 

--MM


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 8:22 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Oct 16 11:47:48 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:47:48 +0900
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
Message-ID: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>

Hi,

Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.

The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not 
found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still 
around 12-16 per session.  Still draft, which I why I am writing for 
advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...

The process so far.  My understanding is the secretariat took all 
names received from different stakeholders (including 
self-nominations). Collated the names by session they had been 
recommended for, tried to find out if people were actually attending, 
and sent a list of all these names to the advisory group for 
comments.  Advisory group members then sent their recommendations 
from that list back to the secretariat, there was some discussion, 
but not much.  Recommendations were sent blind to the secretariat, in 
most cases members didn't know who others were recommending. 
Recommendations included moving people from sessions they had 
originally been suggested for.

Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as 
people who had support from among the advisory group being named as 
panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped. 
Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as 
panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of 
about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.)  Next level of support have been 
suggested as discussants.

There's not been much discussion about the distinction between 
panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in 
after a round of questions and comments from the floor.  They'll be a 
kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific 
examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or 
try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one 
issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.) 
I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.

The numbers from last Thursday's list are:

Critical Internet Resources:  14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)

It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most 
will be (probably all.)

The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a 
civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)

Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard 
list (of course there are good people in that group) back as 
panelists or discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added 
rather than cut.

What do we do?

I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5 
panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would 
mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any 
stakeholder group on who to select.

Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable, 
they don't work.

Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.  Some of 
us won't be happy.

So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less 
than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)

We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do that.

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From klohento at panos-ao.org  Tue Oct 16 12:48:20 2007
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:48:20 +0000
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <4714EB54.5070108@panos-ao.org>

I also think we should not have too many people on the panels, if we 
want to learn from Athens and since we have less time for main sessions. 
It's a good option to have "discussants", they will have less time than 
main speakers but this will give them the opportunity to provide inputs 
to the debate. As someone said they are "people like the public, but in 
a privileged situation for asking questions or making some comments". We 
should ensure that CS stakeholders are also main speakers in all 
sessions. Discussants and speakers should sit at the same table. 5 
speakers+3 discussants are a good number for me...but not sure we will 
avoid 10 people...

Maybe an option for the future is that half of the speakers/discussants 
are not only nominated but also submit publicly a synthesis of their 
contribution ( short bio + 1 pager), which will serve as basis for their 
selection by the MAG; and half of them will be directly selected by the 
MAG (key experts, people from "disadvantaged" groups, etc.).

By the way, providing attendance financial support (travel, 
accommodation…) for some speakers also remain an issue. The fact that 
only the people that have the means/the opportunity to attend the summit 
can be selected is not fair. IGF funding remains a problem.

Ken L


Adam Peake a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.
>
> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not 
> found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still 
> around 12-16 per session. Still draft, which I why I am writing for 
> advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...
>
> The process so far. My understanding is the secretariat took all names 
> received from different stakeholders (including self-nominations). 
> Collated the names by session they had been recommended for, tried to 
> find out if people were actually attending, and sent a list of all 
> these names to the advisory group for comments. Advisory group members 
> then sent their recommendations from that list back to the 
> secretariat, there was some discussion, but not much. Recommendations 
> were sent blind to the secretariat, in most cases members didn't know 
> who others were recommending. Recommendations included moving people 
> from sessions they had originally been suggested for.
>
> Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as 
> people who had support from among the advisory group being named as 
> panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped. 
> Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as 
> panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of 
> about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.) Next level of support have been 
> suggested as discussants.
>
> There's not been much discussion about the distinction between 
> panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in 
> after a round of questions and comments from the floor. They'll be a 
> kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific 
> examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or 
> try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one 
> issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.) 
> I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.
>
> The numbers from last Thursday's list are:
>
> Critical Internet Resources: 14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
> Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)
>
> It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most 
> will be (probably all.)
>
> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a 
> civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
>
> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard 
> list (of course there are good people in that group) back as panelists 
> or discussants. So we are tending to see names being added rather than 
> cut.
>
> What do we do?
>
> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5 
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.) But that would 
> mean dropping a lot of good people. There is no agreement among any 
> stakeholder group on who to select.
>
> Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable, 
> they don't work.
>
> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions. Some of us 
> won't be happy.
>
> So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less 
> than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)
>
> We should not make the list of names public. We've no right to do that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
Ken Lohento
Programme "Usages et politiques du numérique" (TIC)/
Uses and Policies of Digital Technology (ICT)
Institut Panos Afrique de l'Ouest/Panos Institute West Africa
6 rue Calmette Dakar Sénégal
+221 849 16 66
www.panos-ao.org
www.cipaco.org
www.euroafrica-ict.org
http://mediatic.panos-ao.org


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Tue Oct 16 13:41:06 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:41:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
 <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
 <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>
 <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
Message-ID: <a06240845c337871697c0@[192.168.0.101]>

Do you want to go a few rounds here, Veni?  As has been the case on other occasions?  Where anything useful has already been been said and done?  Now the only point is to sling ugly words back and forth, over and over again?  While at least some of the rest of us groan, "please, why sign on for this ...?"  And the list, yet again, becomes an arid place, without useful function?

The accepted response, when a person is abusive, is to ignore him/her.  By writing this far, the assumption necessarily compels other than that view of the matter.  If you come back offlist, we will trade phone numbers or skype IDs and talk a couple minutes.

David

At 5:42 PM -0400 10/13/07, Veni Markovski wrote:
>I don't know if you know or not ...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Tue Oct 16 14:08:38 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:08:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <a06240845c337871697c0@[192.168.0.101]>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
 <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
 <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>
 <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
 <a06240845c337871697c0@[192.168.0.101]>
Message-ID: <20071016180918.2EA852BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>

I am sorry, but I don't understand what you are talking about.
I've made my points about the article that some people here had 
questions about. For me that case is closed. If you, on the other 
hand, have something to tell me off the list, it's not necessary to 
write a message on the list - you have my e-mail address, and you 
certainly could have send a message directly.

I have difficulties understanding your message - sorry, but English 
is not my first language, it's the fourth, and perhaps I am missing 
something from what you wanted to say.

veni

At 13:41 10/16/2007  -0400, you wrote:
>Do you want to go a few rounds here, Veni?  As has been the case on 
>other occasions?  Where anything useful has already been been said 
>and done?  Now the only point is to sling ugly words back and forth, 
>over and over again?  While at least some of the rest of us groan, 
>"please, why sign on for this ...?"  And the list, yet again, 
>becomes an arid place, without useful function?
>
>The accepted response, when a person is abusive, is to ignore 
>him/her.  By writing this far, the assumption necessarily compels 
>other than that view of the matter.  If you come back offlist, we 
>will trade phone numbers or skype IDs and talk a couple minutes.
>
>David
>
>At 5:42 PM -0400 10/13/07, Veni Markovski wrote:
> >I don't know if you know or not ...
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Oct 16 16:45:20 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:45:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of
	participants
Message-ID: <s714eab7.038@gwia203.syr.edu>

Adam,

Observing the 2 data points of what happened in Athenss, and what is
happening now in the runup to Rio, where there will be 1/3 less time per
session: it appears to be difficult to have less than X people per
session.

Keeping X as small as possible is a worthy goal, fighting the trend
altogether seems unlikely to succeed. 

My advice: make lemonade from the lemons; accept the numbers, but turn
everyone into a discussant, in a roundtable style. If 15 people on stage
have things to say they likely will behave appropriately and take turns,
all frustrated that they could not say more (so hopefully they pick
words carefully); likewise the audience is enlightened or frustrated as
the conversation progresses, as only a small fraction of them will be
able to get in even a few words/ask a question of the discussants.

For cs folks fighting the good fight to keep the conversation balanced
and focused, my 2 centavos of advice is keep pushing, mainly to keep the
panels, excuse me, the number of discussants, from getting any larger.

To work the formula further: 15 people/1.5 hrs = ~5 minutes per
discussant, 30 minutes reserved for the intros of whoever is chairing
that particular session, plus comments from the floor and back and forth
between the discussants and audience.

BUT: noone is guaranteed 5 minutes, that should just be their target
for whatever remarks they plan to make.

After all, IGF is a discussion forum, so we're looking for a formula
for a global, multistakeholder conversation, not lectures we can hear
any number of other places...in my opinion.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> ajp at glocom.ac.jp 10/16/2007 11:47 AM >>>
Hi,

Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.

The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not 
found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still 
around 12-16 per session.  Still draft, which I why I am writing for 
advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...

The process so far.  My understanding is the secretariat took all 
names received from different stakeholders (including 
self-nominations). Collated the names by session they had been 
recommended for, tried to find out if people were actually attending, 
and sent a list of all these names to the advisory group for 
comments.  Advisory group members then sent their recommendations 
from that list back to the secretariat, there was some discussion, 
but not much.  Recommendations were sent blind to the secretariat, in 
most cases members didn't know who others were recommending. 
Recommendations included moving people from sessions they had 
originally been suggested for.

Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as 
people who had support from among the advisory group being named as 
panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped. 
Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as 
panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of 
about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.)  Next level of support have been 
suggested as discussants.

There's not been much discussion about the distinction between 
panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in 
after a round of questions and comments from the floor.  They'll be a 
kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific 
examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or 
try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one 
issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.) 
I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.

The numbers from last Thursday's list are:

Critical Internet Resources:  14 participants (8 speakers, 6
discussants)
Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)

It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most 
will be (probably all.)

The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a 
civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)

Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard 
list (of course there are good people in that group) back as 
panelists or discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added 
rather than cut.

What do we do?

I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5 
panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would 
mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any 
stakeholder group on who to select.

Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable, 
they don't work.

Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.  Some of 
us won't be happy.

So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less 
than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)

We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do
that.

Thanks,

Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Tue Oct 16 19:49:42 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:49:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <47154E16.9080204@Malcolm.id.au>

Adam Peake wrote:
> What do we do?
> 
> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5 
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would 
> mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any 
> stakeholder group on who to select.

Surely the "discussants" can just raise their hands like the rest of us. 
  Last year, much of what came from the floor was more interesting and 
provocative than what the panelists had to say.  And the sessions should 
be required to start on time.  That will give everyone more time to be 
heard.

-- 
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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Oct 16 22:45:44 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:45:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58B22@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

A very tough decision, Adam I do not envy you this situation. 
Almost impossible to offer meaningful guidance without the names, and of course I perfectly understand why you can't give them. 

My only guidance would be that you should for each panel identify 3 "core" CS people who are articulate and really have something important to say and from your point of view (as a long-time observer of these discussions) must not be thrown off.  

If those "critical internet human resources" are on any given panel, then work hard to throw as many others off as you can. If they are not, work to get them on. 

As someone who has put together many programs of this sort in an academic and policy context, I understand that there is an inherent bias toward expansion. It always happens. And people always regret it, afterwards, so work hard to limit the size and go for _quality_ -- not quantity and token representation. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.
> 
> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not
> found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still
> around 12-16 per session.  Still draft, which I why I am writing for
> advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...
> 
> The process so far.  My understanding is the secretariat took all
> names received from different stakeholders (including
> self-nominations). Collated the names by session they had been
> recommended for, tried to find out if people were actually attending,
> and sent a list of all these names to the advisory group for
> comments.  Advisory group members then sent their recommendations
> from that list back to the secretariat, there was some discussion,
> but not much.  Recommendations were sent blind to the secretariat, in
> most cases members didn't know who others were recommending.
> Recommendations included moving people from sessions they had
> originally been suggested for.
> 
> Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as
> people who had support from among the advisory group being named as
> panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped.
> Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as
> panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of
> about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.)  Next level of support have been
> suggested as discussants.
> 
> There's not been much discussion about the distinction between
> panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in
> after a round of questions and comments from the floor.  They'll be a
> kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific
> examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or
> try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one
> issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.)
> I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.
> 
> The numbers from last Thursday's list are:
> 
> Critical Internet Resources:  14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
> Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)
> 
> It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most
> will be (probably all.)
> 
> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a
> civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
> 
> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard
> list (of course there are good people in that group) back as
> panelists or discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added
> rather than cut.
> 
> What do we do?
> 
> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would
> mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any
> stakeholder group on who to select.
> 
> Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable,
> they don't work.
> 
> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.  Some of
> us won't be happy.
> 
> So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less
> than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)
> 
> We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date:
> 10/16/2007 8:22 AM
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 8:22 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 drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Oct 17 04:28:39 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:28:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <C33B9457.DFE7%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Adam,

It's sort of ironic that the AG, which is appointed to provide high-level
expert advice on an optimal and balanced program, would as its main piece of
business ignore the one point on which seemingly everyone, including AG
members, agreed about Athens---too many panelists.  9 to 16 participants in
a two hour session is just nuts.  Either the moderators run excessively
tight ships sharply limiting and frustrating the panelists, or there will be
inadequate time for Q&A with the floor.  It seems unlikely that a majority
of attendees will come away satisfied, and in the case of CIR, on which lots
of people will have things they want to say, there will be frustration (at
least among those who wanted this on the agenda) if the conversation
doesn't focus and cumulate in any manner, which it won't with 14 speakers.
I'm hard pressed to see how this could be good for the IGF's public
perception, political support, and future development.

I also think the idea of discussants is unhelpful.  These folks will feel
like second class citizens, particularly if being in the category is
publicly understood to mean that they had "less support from the AG;" it
will be difficult to keep them satisfied with their constraints (if
"panelists" get five minutes, what do discussants get, one or two minutes to
say their piece?); and it'll waste time cycling between the two groups.

This is yet another reminder that poorly organized processes produce poor
results:  AG members tossing names into a hat without knowing what other
names have already been suggested by colleagues; and a necessarily additive
representational/interest group selection process, rather than just focusing
on who would be likely to have something interesting to say irrespective of
which group they're identified with.  Personally, I'd have taken the Noah's
ark approach, get two value-adding speakers from each of four stakeholder
species (excluding international orgs that will get to show their wares in
Open Forum sessions), and stop there.  If anyone's disappointed not to get
on because of this constraint, well, sorry, but it's taking one for the
team.

I suppose the one good piece of news is for the workshops.  If the main
sessions are as you describe, maybe more people will opt to skip them and go
attend parallel sessions that are actually well planned and focused, with
manageable line-ups of speakers.

Cheers,

Bill

On 10/16/07 5:47 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.
> 
> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not
> found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still
> around 12-16 per session.  Still draft, which I why I am writing for
> advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...
> 
> The process so far.  My understanding is the secretariat took all
> names received from different stakeholders (including
> self-nominations). Collated the names by session they had been
> recommended for, tried to find out if people were actually attending,
> and sent a list of all these names to the advisory group for
> comments.  Advisory group members then sent their recommendations
> from that list back to the secretariat, there was some discussion,
> but not much.  Recommendations were sent blind to the secretariat, in
> most cases members didn't know who others were recommending.
> Recommendations included moving people from sessions they had
> originally been suggested for.
> 
> Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as
> people who had support from among the advisory group being named as
> panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped.
> Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as
> panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of
> about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.)  Next level of support have been
> suggested as discussants.
> 
> There's not been much discussion about the distinction between
> panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in
> after a round of questions and comments from the floor.  They'll be a
> kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific
> examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or
> try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one
> issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.)
> I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.
> 
> The numbers from last Thursday's list are:
> 
> Critical Internet Resources:  14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
> Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
> Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
> Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)
> 
> It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most
> will be (probably all.)
> 
> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a
> civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
> 
> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard
> list (of course there are good people in that group) back as
> panelists or discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added
> rather than cut.
> 
> What do we do?
> 
> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would
> mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any
> stakeholder group on who to select.
> 
> Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable,
> they don't work.
> 
> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.  Some of
> us won't be happy.
> 
> So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less
> than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)
> 
> We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
 



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From vb at bertola.eu  Wed Oct 17 05:38:14 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:38:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <4715D806.10300@bertola.eu>

Adam Peake ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.

Subdivide the AG into four subgroups (governments, I* societies, civil 
society and ICC). Ask each group to propose two names in priority order 
among the ones already nominated. If they are all different, you end up 
with eight panelists, which at this stage looks like a good compromise. 
If some suggestions overlap, that's even better - you get less. If the 
result isn't very diverse, ask some group to reconsider, and if that's 
not possible, live with it (especially, I would avoid civil society to 
be characterized as the stakeholder that always has to provide women and 
people from developing countries so that all the others can continue to 
ignore diversity requirements).

I think there's no other way to do it.

In any case, if we really ended up again with sessions with 14 people, I 
suggest we make a statement about it as a caucus.

P.S. I would be against the suggestion that Ken posted, that people 
should specify in advance what they would say, and would be picked 
according to that. It's a good road for cross-vetoing and advance 
censorship.
-- 
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 ca at rits.org.br  Wed Oct 17 09:47:56 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:47:56 -0300
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58B22@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58B22@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4716128C.2020402@rits.org.br>

The additional comment I have is that the group taking the decisions do 
not know who several of the people listed are, what exactly they do, 
what involvement they have in any of the main themes of the IGF. 
Decisions in some cases seem to be taken just by their formal labels 
(this is a businessperson, lets keep him/her to keep the balance etc), 
or by the people's WI index (who indicates her/him).

Also, perceptions regarding people in one region by people in another, 
as much as they might have a good view of who gets involved in the 
processes, are not enough. Thus I have been advocating a consultation 
scheme with each of the people listed. Well, at least a basic "action 
oriented" CV would be requested from each of the people in the list, but 
the MAG seems to have a different perception of what this selection 
process is, and in any case it might be too late.

To give people an idea of the scant transparency, if any, I am special 
advisor to the co-chair, so I am in the MAG's internal list, and I have 
never received any communcationn on why and how someone decided to move 
me from the CIR panel to the Access panel. One can imagine what happens 
to the ones who are not as close as I am to the "decision makers".

This whole thing needs to be revamped for the next IGFs; the disaster is 
already replayed for this one -- to the point I am suggesting the MAG be 
called MAD (multistakeholder advisory disaster).

In summary: the excessive number of people is the least of problems.

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> A very tough decision, Adam I do not envy you this situation. 
> Almost impossible to offer meaningful guidance without the names, and of course I perfectly understand why you can't give them. 
> 
> My only guidance would be that you should for each panel identify 3 "core" CS people who are articulate and really have something important to say and from your point of view (as a long-time observer of these discussions) must not be thrown off.  
> 
> If those "critical internet human resources" are on any given panel, then work hard to throw as many others off as you can. If they are not, work to get them on. 
> 
> As someone who has put together many programs of this sort in an academic and policy context, I understand that there is an inherent bias toward expansion. It always happens. And people always regret it, afterwards, so work hard to limit the size and go for _quality_ -- not quantity and token representation. 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 11:48 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Not good news about the selection of speakers for the IGF.
>>
>> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not
>> found a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still
>> around 12-16 per session.  Still draft, which I why I am writing for
>> advice. There's time to cut the numbers, if only we knew how...
>>
>> The process so far.  My understanding is the secretariat took all
>> names received from different stakeholders (including
>> self-nominations). Collated the names by session they had been
>> recommended for, tried to find out if people were actually attending,
>> and sent a list of all these names to the advisory group for
>> comments.  Advisory group members then sent their recommendations
>> from that list back to the secretariat, there was some discussion,
>> but not much.  Recommendations were sent blind to the secretariat, in
>> most cases members didn't know who others were recommending.
>> Recommendations included moving people from sessions they had
>> originally been suggested for.
>>
>> Last Thursday the secretariat sent list which they had divided up as
>> people who had support from among the advisory group being named as
>> panelists and discussants, and people lacking support being dropped.
>> Those with most support from among the advisory group were listed as
>> panelists, suggested they will be able to make an initial comment of
>> about 5 minutes (no powerpoint.)  Next level of support have been
>> suggested as discussants.
>>
>> There's not been much discussion about the distinction between
>> panelists and discussants. I think discussants will be brought in
>> after a round of questions and comments from the floor.  They'll be a
>> kind of second wave, with shorter statements, perhaps give specific
>> examples to highlight some topic, or ask questions for the panel, or
>> try to move the discussion along if it becomes bogged down on one
>> issue or looses track, etc. (only my guess as to what they might do.)
>> I am not sure where the idea for "discussants" came from originally.
>>
>> The numbers from last Thursday's list are:
>>
>> Critical Internet Resources:  14 participants (8 speakers, 6 discussants)
>> Access: 15 participants (6 speakers, 9 discussants)
>> Diversity: 12 participants (8 speakers, 4 discussants)
>> Openness: 15 participants (9 speakers, 6 discussants)
>> Security: 16 participants (7 speakers, 9 discussants)
>> Emerging issues: 9 participants (4 speakers, 5 discussants)
>>
>> It's not clear if all of these are actually attending, but seems most
>> will be (probably all.)
>>
>> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a
>> civil society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
>>
>> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard
>> list (of course there are good people in that group) back as
>> panelists or discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added
>> rather than cut.
>>
>> What do we do?
>>
>> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5
>> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would
>> mean dropping a lot of good people.  There is no agreement among any
>> stakeholder group on who to select.
>>
>> Very clear message from Athens that large panels are not acceptable,
>> they don't work.
>>
>> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.  Some of
>> us won't be happy.
>>
>> So what do we do and how do we do it. (Note the lack of time, less
>> than four weeks to the start of the meeting.)
>>
>> We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do that.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Adam
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date:
>> 10/16/2007 8:22 AM
>>
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.12/1073 - Release Date: 10/16/2007 8:22 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rio       Brasil
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Oct 17 10:10:20 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:10:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]>
Message-ID: <471617CC.3010901@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Adam Peake schrieb:
> The sessions are now 2 not 3 hours, but at the moment we have not found
> a way to reduce the number of participants, like Athens still around
> 12-16 per session.
No way. Enough said on this by you the others.

> The list of panelists and discussants doesn't look too bad from a civil
> society perspective (some holes, but not too bad.)
Good news.

> Some AG members are still suggesting moving people from the discard list
> (of course there are good people in that group) back as panelists or
> discussants.  So we are tending to see names being added rather than cut.
Strongly fight this tendency and tell them you have all support from the IGC.

> I think there should be no more than 9 on any session, perhaps 5
> panelists and 4 discussants (5 & 3 better of course.)  But that would
> mean dropping a lot of good people.
There will be lots of good people in the audience anyway. Good people can
raise their hands.

> Going for the smaller number means less CS on the sessions.
No problem at all if the other stakeholder groups are affected the same way.

> Some of us won't be happy.
The one thing I learned in the WSIS process is that diplomacy is not about
making everybody happy, it's about making everybody equally unhappy. :-)

> So what do we do and how do we do it.
If there is no agreed process for reducing names, you should just draw
lots. Seriously.

> We should not make the list of names public.  We've no right to do that.
Not sure about rights here, but I certainly avoids more trouble.

Good luck!

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Oct 17 13:25:19 2007
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:25:19 +0300
Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58A9F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710032141m6aab4f6dn3fe8036f054d86ff@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710051057x3088db16m8443b18826bc6dbe@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <f65fb55e0710151116l2ff9d892qb3369f3b980534bd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58A9F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0710171025n24382d56h88e31ef21ebb822e@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

On 10/16/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> > A /24 is routed the same way a /8 is routed, with BGP4 (usually), so
> > no difference there.
>
> I don't have time to clear up this misconception. Let's just say that the decision about who gets a /8 and who gets a /24 has something to do with routing as well as address conservation.
>

Actually, The "decision" about who gets a /8 vs. a /24 has nothing to
do with either routing or conservation.  Addresses are assigned
according to proven need, following policies laid down by the
community in question.

IIRC, only one of us has ever actually made IP allocations.  It's been
a couple of years, but I seem to recall how it's done, so I don't
think the misconception is on my side.

> > AFAIK, RIRs don't impose routing aggregation constraints, although
>
> Interesting, a few years ago I was told that if we had any competition among RIRs we would instantly lose all route aggregation....

I'm sure you will try point to smt I said a few years ago, but it's
nonsensical to suggest that current route aggregation would be lost if
there was "RIR shopping".  We certainly would lose some
aggregatability going forward if we had competition as you had
suggested, but that's not the same as "instantly lose all route
aggregation".

> > they DO keep aggregation in mind whenever possible when making
> > allocations.
>
> Hmm, so would you say that "The way RIRs allocate addresses has a lot to do with how routing takes place"? ;-)

No, I would say they don't waste (IPv4) space needlessly.  See above,
a /24 is routed the same way as a /8.

>
> > > and the need to register addresses with
> > > RIRs all have some kind of impact.
> >
> > In the RIRs I am familiar with, if it's an allocation or a PI
> > (End-User) assignment, the RIR does the registration in the RIR
> > Database.  LIRs do enter PA assignments in the appropriate RIR Db, and
> > these can be routed by an entity that is NOT the LIR, but this
> > requires an entry in a Routing Registry (not neccesarily the same as
> > an RIR).  In other words, it's difficult to route a PA assignment
> > block that is NOT registered in an RIR Db, but this is the task of an
> > LIR, NOT an RIR.
>
> To shorten what you say above, "the need to register addresses with RIRs has some kind of impact on routing."

sort of, but not on routing policy per se.

> This is yet another one of those bizarre McTim exchanges in which you essentially confirm what I asserted but nevertheless insist that you are disagreeing with me. Hope you enjoyed it.

I confirmed the tiniest sliver of reality in your assertion.  It's
only satisfying if the clue bat works, in this case, it seems to be
failing. I'll have to use a bigger one ;-)

>
> > Why? With the birth of the two newest RIRs folk building filters just
> > have two more databases for their scripts to query.  I don't see any
> > "major effects".  Maybe you can ask the folk at Syracuse if they have
>
> Tell me: what reason is there to create a RIR?

Pride,regional policy making, ease of travel/lower cost to meetings, etc.

>Does it contribute to route aggregation or not? A simple yes or no on
that last question would suffice.

I'll give you a firm no on that, and a definite yes at the same time.

The act of creating a new RIR doesn't contribute, as RIRs don't route
the space they allocate.  As I've said before, one of their main goals
IS aggregation, so yes, they do contribute.  However, if you had
hundreds of them (one per country for example) this would contribute
to DE-aggregation to an extent.

>
> > had to change their routing policies since LACNIC and AfriNIC came
> > into existence?
>
> I am sure they did not. But that was not my point. Do you think Latin American and African ISPs changed their routing policies?

Well, in some cases, they changed IP blocks, and routing policies
change when you get change peers and/or IP blocks, so some did.

I think we have been talking past each other, here is an illustration
of why.  I am in Nairobi today, and here is the block of IPs I am
writing this mail from:

inetnum:         196.207.16.0 - 196.207.31.255
org:             ORG-CSL1-AFRINIC
netname:         ORG-CSL1-AFRINIC-20050530
descr:           Communication Solutions Ltd.
descr:           PROVIDER Local Registry
country:         KE
admin-c:         NPS2007-AFRINIC
tech-c:          RM1760-AFRINIC
status:          ALLOCATED PA
mnt-by:          AFRINIC-HM-MNT
mnt-lower:       COMMSOL-MNT
source:          AFRINIC

Here is the route object registered for that block:

% Information related to '196.207.16.0/20AS15808'
route:           196.207.16.0/20
descr:           Commsol  Infrastructure
origin:          AS15808
mnt-routes:      RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT
mnt-by:          COMMSOL-MNT
source:          RIPE

And here, in the ASN, in Routing Policy specification Language, is the
routing policy for the ISP used to send this mail:

 Information related to 'AS15808'
aut-num:         AS15808
as-name:         UNSPECIFIED
descr:           Communication Solutions Ltd is an ISP serving
descr:           corporate customers in Kenya
import:          from AS5486
         action pref=100;
         accept ANY
import:          from AS12455
         action pref=100;
         accept ANY
export:          to AS12455
         announce AS15808
admin-c:         TECH6-RIPE
tech-c:          TECH6-RIPE
tech-c:          RM1760-RIPE
mnt-by:          COMMSOL-MNT
source:          RIPE

"import" means they accept routes (send packets) from the other ASNs
listed, export means they send their routes (acccept packets).  THIS
is their routing "policy". I suspect you are talking about other kinds
of "policies".

Again, this is the RPSL "map" of the BGP "territory" that is
implemented in the routers of the ASs.

>
> > I guess it's concievable, `i just can't see the IGF making these
> > decisions.
>
> IGF doesn't make any decisions. IGF talks about things. Are you still looking for the UN-takes-over-the-Internet bogeyman under your bed?

No, but I am wary of folk who want to talk about things already being
discussed in other (authoritative) fora, when they show little or no
inclination to join those other fora.

-- 
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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu Oct 18 21:01:26 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:01:26 +0800
Subject: [governance] New IGF community site
Message-ID: <471801E6.1060408@Malcolm.id.au>

A new Web site for the IGF community has just been launched at 
http://igf-online.net/ by the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition 
(ODCD), a bottom-up multi-stakeholder working group of the IGF.

The new site already hosts a number of useful resources including a 
community blog, wiki, calendar, chat and needs feeds, most of which were 
selected for their capacity to support multilingual usage.  It also 
features a specially-designed menu running along the top of most pages 
of the site, that links in external Web sites including the 
Secretariat's official Web site and that of the Rio hosts.

This new site for the Rio meeting and beyond supersedes last year's site 
(which, beset by hosting troubles, is currently inaccessible), and 
thanks to a sponsor's generosity now provides the IGF community with a 
dedicated server on which a large variety of online tools can be hosted 
without the limitations of a standard Web hosting service.

Members of the IGF community, including dynamic coalitions, are 
encouraged to begin using the new site now.  By registering (or logging 
in with your existing OpenID) you can begin posting on the community 
blog, adding events to the calendar, and entering information on the 
wiki.  Hosting of other content will be accommodated on request.

Volunteers are needed to help with translating the site's content into 
other languages, designing a complementary set of themes, and spreading 
the word.  Please contact me or the Online Collaboration Dynamic 
Coalition if you would like to help, have any trouble using the site, or 
have any new ideas for it.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Thu Oct 18 21:15:14 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:15:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [Plenary] New IGF community site
In-Reply-To: <471801E6.1060408@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <471801E6.1060408@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <8A7682CF-D013-41F3-AAEA-97EE1BDA5C3F@privaterra.info>

Jeremy:

Is there any official connection between the website and the  
secretariat, or is it just your initiative?

regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 18-Oct-07, at 9:01 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> A new Web site for the IGF community has just been launched at
> http://igf-online.net/ by the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition
> (ODCD), a bottom-up multi-stakeholder working group of the IGF.
>
> The new site already hosts a number of useful resources including a
> community blog, wiki, calendar, chat and needs feeds, most of which  
> were
> selected for their capacity to support multilingual usage.  It also
> features a specially-designed menu running along the top of most pages
> of the site, that links in external Web sites including the
> Secretariat's official Web site and that of the Rio hosts.
>
> This new site for the Rio meeting and beyond supersedes last year's  
> site
> (which, beset by hosting troubles, is currently inaccessible), and
> thanks to a sponsor's generosity now provides the IGF community with a
> dedicated server on which a large variety of online tools can be  
> hosted
> without the limitations of a standard Web hosting service.
>
> Members of the IGF community, including dynamic coalitions, are
> encouraged to begin using the new site now.  By registering (or  
> logging
> in with your existing OpenID) you can begin posting on the community
> blog, adding events to the calendar, and entering information on the
> wiki.  Hosting of other content will be accommodated on request.
>
> Volunteers are needed to help with translating the site's content into
> other languages, designing a complementary set of themes, and  
> spreading
> the word.  Please contact me or the Online Collaboration Dynamic
> Coalition if you would like to help, have any trouble using the  
> site, or
> have any new ideas for it.
>
> -- 
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/plenary_intgovforum.org

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Thu Oct 18 21:29:42 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:29:42 +0800
Subject: [governance] Re: [Plenary] New IGF community site
In-Reply-To: <8A7682CF-D013-41F3-AAEA-97EE1BDA5C3F@privaterra.info>
References: <471801E6.1060408@Malcolm.id.au> <8A7682CF-D013-41F3-AAEA-97EE1BDA5C3F@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <47180886.3070807@Malcolm.id.au>

Robert Guerra wrote:
> Jeremy:
> 
> Is there any official connection between the website and the 
> secretariat, or is it just your initiative?

It's the outcome of something the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition 
has been discussing for ages, and Chengetai Masango lurks on its mailing 
list, as do a number of Advisory Group members.  I don't know if that 
answers your question.

-- 
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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Fri Oct 19 01:16:43 2007
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:16:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [Plenary] New IGF community site
In-Reply-To: <47180886.3070807@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <471801E6.1060408@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <8A7682CF-D013-41F3-AAEA-97EE1BDA5C3F@privaterra.info>
	 <47180886.3070807@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <45ed74050710182216t50c98c7bw40e8a04cdc2b8ff@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Jeremy,

Briefly explored, much appreciated.  So helpful overall, it will especially
nice for persons who only have remote access to participate this way. thanks
so much.  Can you add my name and email to the Online Collaboration Dynamic
Coalition?

I am especially keen on topics relating to *people's assembling*. and from a
*Respectful Interfaces* point of view (My U.N. programme, interest of all
invited).

Many thanks, LDMF.
-- 
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 U.N.
(Other Affiliations on Request).
alternate  email:
linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com


P.S. Copied to the International Disability Caucus ICT Task-force, for whom
this portal will no doubt be very cheering news, and to the general list of
the IDC, in addition to the  Communication Coordination Committee for the
U.N..

On 10/18/07, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
>
> Robert Guerra wrote:
> > Jeremy:
> >
> > Is there any official connection between the website and the
> > secretariat, or is it just your initiative?
>
> It's the outcome of something the Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition
> has been discussing for ages, and Chengetai Masango lurks on its mailing
> list, as do a number of Advisory Group members.  I don't know if that
> answers your question.
>
> --
> 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
>
.
(Other Affiliations on Request).
alternate  email:
linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071019/9ce64693/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071019/9ce64693/attachment.txt>

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 19 01:51:10 2007
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] New IGF community site - not recognising old login details
Message-ID: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>


Hi Jeremy, all

I tried logging in with details from the initial site put up a bit before Athens. Not going through.  Is another  subscription needed?

Nnenna
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra <lists at privaterra.info>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 7:29:42 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [Plenary] New IGF community site


Robert Guerra wrote:
> Jeremy:
> 
> Is there any official connection between the website and the 
> secretariat, or is it just your initiative?

It's the outcome of something the Online Collaboration Dynamic
 Coalition 
has been discussing for ages, and Chengetai Masango lurks on its
 mailing 
list, as do a number of Advisory Group members.  I don't know if that 
answers your question.

-- 
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





__________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071018/1a09c237/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071018/1a09c237/attachment.txt>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri Oct 19 05:51:44 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:51:44 +0800
Subject: [governance] New IGF community site - not recognising old login
 details
In-Reply-To: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au>

Nnenna wrote:
> 
> Hi Jeremy, all
> 
> I tried logging in with details from the initial site put up a bit 
> before Athens. Not going through.  Is another  subscription needed?

I'm afraid so.  The Athens site (igf2006.info) was hosted in Kieren 
McCarthy's private Web space, and it mysteriously broke some time ago. 
I've offered to try and recover the old logins and content, but don't 
have access to attempt this yet.  The new site is no longer hosted on 
private Web space, but on a dedicated virtual server with multiple 
administrators, so the same issue should not recur.

Although the old subscriptions don't work, the two main applications on 
the new site (community blog and wiki) have both been configured to 
accept OpenID logins (see http://openid.net/get), which at least means 
that you won't have to register more than once on the new site, and may 
not have to register at all if you already have an OpenID.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Oct 19 06:08:43 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 19:08:43 +0900
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <C33B9457.DFE7%drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <C33B9457.DFE7%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <p06240815c33b88bfa20c@[192.168.0.4]>

>Hi Adam,
>
>It's sort of ironic that the AG, which is appointed to provide high-level
>expert advice on an optimal and balanced program, would as its main piece of
>business ignore the one point on which seemingly everyone, including AG
>members, agreed about Athens---too many panelists.  9 to 16 participants in
>a two hour session is just nuts.


I agree.


>Either the moderators run excessively
>tight ships sharply limiting and frustrating the panelists, or there will be
>inadequate time for Q&A with the floor.  It seems unlikely that a majority
>of attendees will come away satisfied, and in the case of CIR, on which lots
>of people will have things they want to say, there will be frustration (at
>least among those who wanted this on the agenda) if the conversation
>doesn't focus and cumulate in any manner, which it won't with 14 speakers.
>I'm hard pressed to see how this could be good for the IGF's public
>perception, political support, and future development.


I agree.


>I also think the idea of discussants is unhelpful.  These folks will feel
>like second class citizens, particularly if being in the category is
>publicly understood to mean that they had "less support from the AG;"


No, they should recognize there was all kinds of decisions being made 
about trying to balance knowledge/country/region/stakeholder/gender.



>it
>will be difficult to keep them satisfied with their constraints (if
>"panelists" get five minutes, what do discussants get, one or two minutes to
>say their piece?); and it'll waste time cycling between the two groups.


Yes.


>This is yet another reminder that poorly organized processes produce poor
>results:


Yes.  Names only requested after the last consultation (but we knew 
they were going to be needed, if you look at the transcripts of all 
open consultations this year at each I asked that we begin selecting 
speakers early.)

Lesson: can't arrange large international conferences in 10 weeks.


>AG members tossing names into a hat without knowing what other
>names have already been suggested by colleagues; and a necessarily additive
>representational/interest group selection process, rather than just focusing
>on who would be likely to have something interesting to say irrespective of
>which group they're identified with.


AG list, including the intergovernmental organizations who sit on as 
observers (and are not silent), must be about 80 people.

There were about 120 names recommended (some for more than one panel, 
which I find a bit ambitious.) Some people recommended names without 
checking if the person would be in Rio.  So some of us also tried to 
check who would be there and who not. We are not sure about all on 
the list even now.

Even with 5-7 for each session (5-7 is the number of panelists 
suggested in the programme) it's a lot of names to focus on.  With 
more time we might have managed to go through session by session, but 
there was no way a single mailing list could discuss the merits of 
120 people.  Sending in recommendations blind meant probably more 
people commented, and they probably gave more honest opinions than 
would have if their comments had  been open (may people will not 
discuss relative merits of others even on the most private of private 
lists. Sensibly...)  And I suspect as soon as someone said "her not 
him" someone else would have responded with the opposite. And we'd 
have even less progress.

I am not trying to make excuses, I am saying we're stuck.  Advice 
good.  This is going to happen again next year.


>Personally, I'd have taken the Noah's
>ark approach, get two value-adding speakers from each of four stakeholder
>species (excluding international orgs that will get to show their wares in
>Open Forum sessions)


Not a bad approach.  Please go through the advisory group list and 
define membership of the 4 groups.  And what do you do with those who 
don't fit, they should have a say.

And suggest it will not be practical to tell observers like UNESCO, 
ITU, CoE, OECD, etc they can't suggest speakers for a main session.

Thanks,

Adam



>, and stop there.  If anyone's disappointed not to get
>on because of this constraint, well, sorry, but it's taking one for the
>team.
>
>I suppose the one good piece of news is for the workshops.  If the main
>sessions are as you describe, maybe more people will opt to skip them and go
>attend parallel sessions that are actually well planned and focused, with
>manageable line-ups of speakers.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>On 10/16/07 5:47 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 19 06:47:11 2007
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:47:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <p06240815c33b88bfa20c@[192.168.0.4]>
References: <C33B9457.DFE7%drake@hei.unige.ch> <p06240815c33b88bfa20c@[192.168.0.4]>
Message-ID: <A4A82576-0943-431D-A514-EA00C39B41D9@ras.eu.org>


Le 19 oct. 07 à 12:08, Adam Peake a écrit :
>> Personally, I'd have taken the Noah's
>> ark approach, get two value-adding speakers from each of four  
>> stakeholder
>> species
>
> Not a bad approach.  Please go through the advisory group list and  
> define membership of the 4 groups.  And what do you do with those  
> who don't fit, they should have a say.

So how it comes that they did fit once, when the AG group was formed?  
Has any genetic mutation happened? From which group to which other?

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Oct 19 07:56:27 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 20:56:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <A4A82576-0943-431D-A514-EA00C39B41D9@ras.eu.org>
References: <C33B9457.DFE7%drake@hei.unige.ch>
 <p06240815c33b88bfa20c@[192.168.0.4]>
 <A4A82576-0943-431D-A514-EA00C39B41D9@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <p06240801c33e41559e0f@[192.168.1.149]>

At 12:47 PM +0200 10/19/07, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>Le 19 oct. 07 à 12:08, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>>Personally, I'd have taken the Noah's
>>>ark approach, get two value-adding speakers from each of four stakeholder
>>>species
>>
>>Not a bad approach.  Please go through the 
>>advisory group list and define membership of 
>>the 4 groups.  And what do you do with those 
>>who don't fit, they should have a say.
>
>So how it comes that they did fit once, when the AG group was formed?


Those that don't fit are probably very few (so 
tough to them!), I was thinking of something else 
that's not quite relevant.  Yes, it could be done 
by asking the 4 groups to select 2 each.

Adam




>Has any genetic mutation happened? From which group to which other?
>
>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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Oct 19 11:19:55 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:19:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] list of participants, faq about logistical issues
Message-ID: <p06240817c33e7a4ac498@[192.168.1.149]>

A provisional list of registered participants for the Rio IGF meeting 
is now available.

There is also a list of Frequently Asked Questions about logistical 
issues I'd not seen before.

as usual, at http://www.intgovforum.org/

Adam

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Fri Oct 19 12:42:53 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:42:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] update on funding
Message-ID: <200710191642.l9JGgBKO029510@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

After some consultations and discussions with the IGF Secretariat and the
ITU, as well as with other expected or potential donors to the IGF, find
below the following clarifications on the various questions related to
financing participation raised on that list:

 

            - The Japanese contribution to the IGF Secretariat, which has
been mentioned on this list, has not yet been finalised and is therefore not
yet transferred to the IGF Secretariat. We are in touch with the IGF
Secretariat and we would therefore let you know whether anything in this
grant is earmarked for this grant for participation in the IGF Rio meeting.

 

            - The Canadian contribution to the ITU to finance the
participation of IG experts from developing countries in the Rio meeting has
already been partly (mostly) allocated to developing countries panellists in
some sessions of the IGF. However not the whole available funding has been
allocated, meaning that there is still a limited number of sponsorships
possible. (Among the criteria that have been and will be considered by the
ITU: experts coming from a developing country; candidates being able to
demonstrate a high expertise and a previous engagement on issues closely
related to Internet Governance and having a high profile in the field of
communications; in priority main contributors / speakers / panellists in one
of the workshops / sessions of the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Rio;
the ITU will also look at the geographical / gender diversity within its
final list of IGF participants receiving a grant. Is there any of you who
enters into this frame?).

 

            - Other potential donors have been in touch with the IGF
Secretariat and might be willing to consider earmarking (some of) their
grant to the participation of CS experts in the Rio IGF meeting, but nothing
has been finalized at this time. In any event the risk is now it would be
too late to be used for participants' funding.

 

We'll keep you posted. 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:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071019/b7f39017/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071019/b7f39017/attachment.txt>

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Sat Oct 20 01:30:35 2007
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:30:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All

I thought this is pertinent on these forums.

Regards,

Rui

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: t r u t h o u t <messenger at truthout.org>
Date: 20 Oct 2007 01:50
Subject: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
To: correia.rui at gmail.com

t r u t h o u t | 10.19

Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml

Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907R.shtml
Peter Svensson, reporting for The Associated Press, writes: "Comcast Corp.
actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition
of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The
Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic
example yet of data discrimination by a US Internet service provider."



Comcast interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
subscribers to share files online; J. Sri Raman writes on the return of
Benazir Bhutto; enormous problems in management lead to criminal probe into
Iraq construction of US embassy; power plant rejected over carbon dioxide in
Kansas for first time in US history; historic bill in Senate to fight
warming affecting every major segment of the nation's economy; Bush aide
rejects climate goal; Guatemala union heads killed; Carolyn Maloney writes
on battling the birth control price hike; Marie Cocco of Truthdig on
Medicare; Tom Philpott of Grist.org interviews Michael Pollan; and more ...
Browse our continually updating front page at http://www.truthout.org



-- 
________________________________________________


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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071020/f850195f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071020/f850195f/attachment.txt>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Oct 20 01:37:37 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:37:37 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
Message-ID: <p06240805c33f3a54c10d@[192.168.0.4]>

For info, sent the following to the advisory group last night.

Couple of things deleted and a comment.  Quoted text is what's on the 
AG list.  I recognize some flaws. But best I can think of. Might get 
numbers below 10.  I doubt it will be adopted ...

Adam



>
>
>Dear Markus,
>



>
>But I agree with

(names - snip)

>there are too many people
>on the list.
>
>If there was one unanimous negative message from Athens it was there
>were too many speakers. In my opinion it is not acceptable for us to
>publish a programme with so many participants.
>


(snip)

>  But
>I think we can fix both these problems, and also ensure good quality
>speakers by allowing stakeholder groups to make further selections
>(i.e. further reductions) from the list you sent today.
>
>We have recognized four main stakeholder groups: government, civil
>society, private sector and the Internet technical bodies. That's how
>membership of the advisory group seems to have been developed.  I can
>hardly see a member of the advisory group that does not fit those
>four groups.


(thank you Meryem :-)


>We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
>selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
>select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  We only use
>the list sent earlier today, "Panellists.18.10.2007.doc".  No more
>additions, no pulling names back of people who have dropped off along
>the way.  There isn't time for even more argument.  If that doesn't
>automatically give balance then we can tweak.
>
>However, in making selections stakeholder groups can move people from
>one session to another.  The list is flexible.  We should know
>people's strengths well enough to suggest if they can be moved in
>this way.
>
>Some observers may feel they will not be represented.  And perhaps
>observers could be offered one panelist or discussant for each
>session: a total of three panelists and three discussants. That would
>make a maximum of 9 on each session.  I am aware that the formulation
>I'm suggesting won't automatically balance the number of
>panelist/discussants on all sessions. But I hope it gets close.
>
>Stakeholders are not required to make 2 selections!
>
>I think we all know what the criteria should be: first we are looking
>for people who are expert on the subject matter and we must pay close
>attention to regional diversity and gender.  If there are obvious
>gaps after this exercise is done then we can look again.
>
>If we follow this plan we might get the number at or below 10 for all
>sessions, and all stakeholders should be equally satisfied or
>dissatisfied.
>
>Perhaps stakeholders will select the same person, in which case
>numbers will drop.  Let's keep selection blind (and honest!), names
>to the secretariat and no sharing before hand.  This would allow for
>the opportunity of chance selection of the same person, so reducing
>the numbers.
>
>People who are unfortunate and not selected can perhaps have their
>names passed to the moderators as first choice
>questioners/contributors from the audience.
>
>We must reduce the number of participants.
>
>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 vb at bertola.eu  Sat Oct 20 08:16:13 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:16:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Letter to the IGF AG
Message-ID: <4719F18D.20508@bertola.eu>

All,

building on what seems to be a general sentiment, we have just sent the 
following letter to the IGF AG.



Dear Mr. Desai, Mr. Vianna, Mr. Kummer, members of the IGF Advisory Group,

we are writing you as co-coordinators of the Civil Society Internet 
Governance Caucus, about the issue of panelist selection for the main 
sessions of the IGF.

We have been informed that there are chances to repeat what happened in 
Athens, where the panels were far too big and it was almost impossible 
to hear adequately from each panelist. This was generally criticized in 
the following consultations in Geneva, and there was clear consensus 
that in Rio the panels of the main sessions would have to be much 
smaller in size, so that sufficient time could be devoted to each 
panelist and to interventions from the floor.

We are thus surprised that anyone is even considering the idea of having 
panels of ten people or above.

We think that the Advisory Group should live up to its responsibility of 
ensuring proper organization of the Forum, and make the necessary 
decisions. Its members should adopt an open and constructive spirit to 
make the best possible choices without rendering the sessions unworkable.

The Internet Governance Caucus has been long proposing the principle of 
stakeholder-group-based representation in the management of the IGF. 
Thus we suggest that civil society members of the Advisory Group could 
examine all the recommendations that were made for civil society 
panelists, and come up with two names per main session. The same could 
be done by the other stakeholder groups, and the secretariat could have 
the chance to indicate one final panelist from international 
organizations and other entities not fitting into any particular group.

This would significantly reduce the size of the problem - bringing 
smaller groups of people to discuss on smaller groups of candidates - 
and ensure that the resulting panels are less than ten people in size.

We thank you for your attention and understanding.

Kindest regards,

Vittorio Bertola
Parminder Jeet Singh
-- 
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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Sat Oct 20 09:48:48 2007
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:48:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <4715D806.10300@bertola.eu>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@[192.168.1.176]> <4715D806.10300@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <471A0740.1080705@panos-ao.org>

Dear Vittorio

Vittorio Bertola a écrit :

> P.S. I would be against the suggestion that Ken posted, that people 
> should specify in advance what they would say, and would be picked 
> according to that. It's a good road for cross-vetoing and advance 
> censorship.


I understand what you mean. It's why I proposed that only half of the 
speakers are selected based on that process. So it's less risky. And if 
the AG is well balanced and/or functions well (and if the Secretariat 
plays well its role) censorship can be reduced. But as you know, people 
can be vetoed just because of what some people know of them, or what the 
web tells about them, without no summary of what they intend to say 
actually. The advantage of a short note on what some speakers want to 
say is that it should give actual suggestions/information on the 
added-value of what they want to say and the selection process would be 
based on more objective facts.

All this proves at least that there is a real need to establish, as now 
the AG mandate implies more formally, clear criteria, methods of work, 
for speaker selection or for the AG decision making process for example.

Thanks


Ken L
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From hananeB at diplomacy.edu  Sat Oct 20 09:53:06 2007
From: hananeB at diplomacy.edu (Hanane Boujemi)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 15:53:06 +0200
Subject: [governance] update on funding
References: <200710191642.l9JGgBKO029510@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <001301c81320$90c240b0$b40ecb58@hananee1f0e145>

Hi Philippe,

Thanks for your update on funding opportunities to attend the second edition of IGF in Rio. This issue has been the main concern especially of Sothern civil society active members in the IG field.

I was invloved in the process since 2003 doing extensive research in different fields IG oriented. I am female Moroccan national and  I have a master in Human rights with a special focus on freedom of expression in cyber space,I am former journalist repoter on technology and a translator. I am also doing research on the access  theme , mainly connectivity issues in Africa I am tutoring at the moment Diplo's capacity building programme on IC and leading it's reserach projects section on IG as well.

Our Agenda it to focus on IG issues but with more focus on the regional level. being present in IGF is of ultimate importance to me and to my organization but due o limited funds, I wasn't to be able to make if I didn't have to finance personally my expensive ticket.

If there is any possibilty to cover the cost of my ticket and the other expenses from one of the donors, It will be much appreciated. So please consider my grant application.

Kind regards,

Hanane Boujemi
IG Research Coordinator and Supervisor
Internet Governance Projects
DiploFoundation
www.diplomacy.edu/ige,


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; gov at wsis-gov.org 
  Cc: 'Renata BLOEM' 
  Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 6:42 PM
  Subject: [governance] update on funding


  Dear all, 

   

  After some consultations and discussions with the IGF Secretariat and the ITU, as well as with other expected or potential donors to the IGF, find below the following clarifications on the various questions related to financing participation raised on that list:

   

              - The Japanese contribution to the IGF Secretariat, which has been mentioned on this list, has not yet been finalised and is therefore not yet transferred to the IGF Secretariat. We are in touch with the IGF Secretariat and we would therefore let you know whether anything in this grant is earmarked for this grant for participation in the IGF Rio meeting.

   

              - The Canadian contribution to the ITU to finance the participation of IG experts from developing countries in the Rio meeting has already been partly (mostly) allocated to developing countries panellists in some sessions of the IGF. However not the whole available funding has been allocated, meaning that there is still a limited number of sponsorships possible. (Among the criteria that have been and will be considered by the ITU: experts coming from a developing country; candidates being able to demonstrate a high expertise and a previous engagement on issues closely related to Internet Governance and having a high profile in the field of communications; in priority main contributors / speakers / panellists in one of the workshops / sessions of the Internet Governance Forum meeting in Rio; the ITU will also look at the geographical / gender diversity within its final list of IGF participants receiving a grant. Is there any of you who enters into this frame?).

   

              - Other potential donors have been in touch with the IGF Secretariat and might be willing to consider earmarking (some of) their grant to the participation of CS experts in the Rio IGF meeting, but nothing has been finalized at this time. In any event the risk is now it would be too late to be used for participants' funding.

   

  We'll keep you posted. 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

   



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071020/6dd04d7b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071020/6dd04d7b/attachment.txt>

From anriette at apc.org  Sat Oct 20 11:40:03 2007
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:40:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Letter to the IGF AG
In-Reply-To: <4719F18D.20508@bertola.eu>
References: <4719F18D.20508@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <471A3D73.18788.15EF31CE@anriette.apc.org>

Good letter Parminder and Vittorio. 

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


From sylvia.caras at gmail.com  Sat Oct 20 14:58:43 2007
From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 11:58:43 -0700
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
In-Reply-To: <471A0740.1080705@panos-ao.org>
References: <p06240808c33a5cee6785@192.168.1.176> <4715D806.10300@bertola.eu>
	 <471A0740.1080705@panos-ao.org>
Message-ID: <b1161f110710201158q2bff8c4fm886b481639788803@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/20/07, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:
>
> All this proves at least that there is a real need to establish, as now
> the AG mandate implies more formally, clear criteria, methods of work,
> for speaker selection or for the AG decision making process for example.

I was delighted that the actual date was set a year ahead, announced
in Athens.  But then I think Brazil started late to make decisions.
It's probably too late for this year, but it seems to me that a
post-IGF open planning meeting (for instance Friday November 16) with
the next host country representatives could help incorporate past
experience and clarify.

Sylvia
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Sat Oct 20 16:15:57 2007
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:15:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants
Message-ID: <20071020201607.A12026787F@smtp1.electricembers.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: Sylvia Caras <sylvia.caras at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:58 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] problem with the sessions: number of participants

On 10/20/07, Ken Lohento <klohento at panos-ao.org> wrote:
>
> All this proves at least that there is a real need to establish, as now
> the AG mandate implies more formally, clear criteria, methods of work,
> for speaker selection or for the AG decision making process for example.

I was delighted that the actual date was set a year ahead, announced
in Athens.  But then I think Brazil started late to make decisions.
It's probably too late for this year, but it seems to me that a
post-IGF open planning meeting (for instance Friday November 16) with
the next host country representatives could help incorporate past
experience and clarify.

Sylvia
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From riazt at iafrica.com  Sat Oct 20 17:19:35 2007
From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:19:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies
Message-ID: <471A70E7.3060405@iafrica.com>

Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies
     By Eric Lichtblau
     The New York Times

     Thursday 18 October 2007

     Washington - Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a 
tentative agreement on Wednesday with the Bush administration that would 
give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the 
National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program approved by 
President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Congressional 
official said Wednesday.

     Senators this week began reviewing classified documents related to 
the participation of the telephone carriers in the security agency 
program and came away from that early review convinced that the 
companies had "acted in good faith" in cooperating with what they 
believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program and that they 
should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles, the 
official said.

     As part of legislation on the security agency's wiretapping 
authorities, the White House has been pushing hard for weeks to get 
immunity for the telecommunications companies in discussions with 
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of 
Missouri, the ranking Republican. A tentative deal was first reported by 
The Washington Post.

     The Intelligence Committee will begin reviewing the legislation at 
a closed session on Thursday.

     The agreement between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 
Bush administration would also include a greater role for the secret 
intelligence court in overseeing and approving methods of wiretapping 
used by the security agency, the official said.

     But it is not clear whether this and other toughened civil 
liberties safeguards included in the agreement will go far enough to 
mollify senators on the Senator Judiciary Committee, who will also 
review the plan once the intelligence panel finishes its work.

     Word of the deal came hours after House Republicans used a 
parliamentary maneuver to scuttle a vote on a measure that would have 
imposed new restrictions on the security agency's eavesdropping powers.

     At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure 
would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President 
Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put 
off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on 
its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama 
bin Laden from attacking the United States again.

     The Republican measure declared that nothing in the broader bill 
should be construed as prohibiting intelligence officials from 
conducting the surveillance needed to prevent Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda 
"from attacking the United States." Had it passed, it threatened to 
derail the Democratic measure altogether.

     Democrats denounced the Republicans' poison pill on Mr. bin Laden 
as a cynical political ploy and "a cheap shot." But Democratic leaders 
realized that they were at risk of losing the votes of a contingent of 
more moderate Democrats who did not want to be left vulnerable for 
voting against a resolution to stop Al Qaeda, officials said. So the 
leaders pulled the measure, promising to take it up again next week once 
they could solidify support.

     The Republican maneuver "would have killed the bill, and we 
couldn't risk that," said a senior Democratic aide, who spoke on 
condition of anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations. "We 
thought we'd be able to defeat it, but it became clear that we couldn't."

     The episode revealed, once again, fault lines within the Democratic 
Party over how to tackle national security questions without appearing 
"soft" on terrorism in the face of Republican criticism.

     Indeed, Republican leaders immediately praised their ability to 
block the N.S.A. measure as a sign of the Democrats' weakness on that 
issue. Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi "underestimated the intelligence of the American 
people and the bipartisan majority in the Congress to understand what 
matters most: preventing another terrorist attack."

     Democrats, clearly thrown on the defensive, countered that 
Republicans were the ones playing politics with national security.

     "Once again, House Republicans have chosen to engage in politics 
rather than substantively address the challenges that face the American 
people," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House 
Democratic leader. "Once again, they have offered an amendment that, if 
passed, would have substantially delayed this important legislation 
which is designed to protect the American people by proposing language 
already provided in the bill."

     The Democratic measure would have sought to restore some of the 
restrictions on the security agency's wiretapping powers that had been 
loosened under a temporary measure approved by Congress just before its 
August recess. The new bill would give the secret foreign intelligence 
court a greater oversight role in the agency's interception of 
foreign-based communications into the United States, and it would 
provide for more reporting and accountability when the communications of 
Americans were involved.

     The Bush administration has lobbied hard against the measure. One 
of its chief complaints is that the House bill would not provide 
immunity for telephone carriers as the Senate measure does.

     A day after threatening to veto the House measure, Mr. Bush kept up 
the political pressure Wednesday in the hours before the bill was to 
come up for a vote. He said at a news conference that the Democratic 
plan would weaken national security, and he urged Congress instead to 
make permanent the measure it passed in August, which broadened the 
security agency's authority to wiretap terrorism suspects without court 
oversight. That measure expires in February.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101807D.shtml
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 21 10:01:51 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:01:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] New IGF community site - not recognising old login
 details
In-Reply-To: <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Jeremy Malcolm schrieb:
> the two main applications on the new site (community blog and wiki)
> have both been configured to accept OpenID logins (see
> http://openid.net/get), which at least means that you won't have to
> register more than once on the new site, and may not have to register
> at all if you already have an OpenID.
Just for everyone's information: OpenID has quite some problems, not the
least being that your OpenID provider can track every move you make when
you use it frequently. So use it with care if you use it at all.

See
<http://bendrath.blogspot.com/2007/04/openid-next-big-thing-with-lots-of.html>
or <http://www.idcorner.org/?p=161> for more info.

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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Sun Oct 21 19:26:19 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:26:19 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: New IGF community site - not recognising old login  details
In-Reply-To: <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200,
 Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote 
 a message of 23 lines which said:

> Just for everyone's information:

Hmmm, this list is probably not the best place to discuss the pros and
the cons of specific technologies... Specially when you make bold
statements like:

> your OpenID provider can track every move you make when you use it
> frequently.

Security is always a trade-off. OpenID gives you more convenience at
the price of some security (you can lower this price by being your own
OpenID provider, something which is quite simple, unlike what happens
in other identity technologies).

Another solution is to keep a separate identity for every Web site you
visit, something most people find painful.

A reasonable compromise is to have a few OpenID identities, organized
along the lines of your various facets. Work, politics, culture, etc.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From nb at bollow.ch  Mon Oct 22 03:13:28 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:13:28 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Identity systems and privacy (was Re: New IGF community site)
In-Reply-To: <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> (message from
	Stephane Bortzmeyer on Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:26:19 +0000)
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch>

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200,
>  Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote 
>  a message of 23 lines which said:
> 
> > Just for everyone's information:
> 
> Hmmm, this list is probably not the best place to discuss the pros and
> the cons of specific technologies... Specially when you make bold
> statements like:
> 
> > your OpenID provider can track every move you make when you use it
> > frequently.

Given that the igf-online.net site prominently promotes OpenID, I
think it is quite appropriate to discuss whether OpenID (in its
most straightforward usage mode) violates the fundamental civil
society position that no outside third party should be easily able
to track a person's significant online activities.

> Security is always a trade-off. OpenID gives you more convenience at
> the price of some security (you can lower this price by being your own
> OpenID provider, something which is quite simple, unlike what happens
> in other identity technologies).

"Being your own OpenID provider" is AFAIK not possible behind NAT.

Therefore, as long as the problem with the shortage of IP addess
numbers remains unsolved, I don't believe that I can accept this
as a solution to the privacy problem with OpenID.

> Another solution is to keep a separate identity for every Web site you
> visit, something most people find painful.

In principle it should be possible to automate this process to
whatever extent the user desires to automate it while keeping all
the involved software and data just on the computers which the
user is using anyway.

I would suggest that this Caucus should adop the position that
only this kind of approach to automated or semi-automated
identity management is acceptable.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Oct 22 05:04:39 2007
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:34:39 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
In-Reply-To: <p06240805c33f3a54c10d@[192.168.0.4]>
Message-ID: <20071022090442.D29F16784E@smtp1.electricembers.net>


I will like to relate the problem that MAG is facing (in speakers selection)
in coming to terms with the global variety and vastness of the issues - and
the people and constituencies that are interested in these issues - that IGF
is supposed to deal with, with the debates on the structure of MAG and the
IGF.

Many who exclusively advocate a win-win multi-stakeholder structure for
global governance -where all those interested can walk in and express
themselves, and the outcomes will be some grand magical average of these
expressions - may need to rethink the workability of such dispensations.
Some degree of representative-ness and exercise of power on others behalf -
balanced with as elaborate structures of transparency and accountability as
possible - is an essential element of any governance structure.

I have heard some MAG CS members making much of how MAG really doesn't wield
any power, and merely acts as a conduit from the various stakeholders,
expressing themselves at open consultations, and otherwise, to the Secretary
General (SG), who really wields all power that there is in the system. And
excuse me to say this, such a stance is disingenuous. Disguised power is
worse than open abuse of power, since it denies the legitimacy of, and
frustrates, any attempts at needed correctives...

In my view, it is better that MAG (under whatever name, bec it cant then be
a 'advisory group') has its power derived directly from the IGF (whatever it
is) than from the Sec General. After all there is no real executive power
meant to be exercised as per Tunis Agenda, and only soft power of agenda
setting, debating, connecting agencies, giving recommendations etc. A MS
group can handle such power.  

The issue of lining up speakers, while keeping sessions productive, clearly
brings to the forth the problem of clear decision-making by the IGF, which
will only keep compounding with time. We know that MAG doesnot just
implement what is stated in open consultations. In any case, just try and
hold the 'open' consultations in Rio or New Delhi and one will go away with
a very different output... So lets recognize the limits of this soft
structure of - we don't decide anything, everyone is allowed to speak, and
nothing really comes out specifically, and people are having a good time -
while there is no progress on developing urgently required public polices
for the Internet, a process which the IGF is supposed to primarily assist
in.  It is important to engage in a serious discussion on what structures of
MAG and IGF can help us meet the mandate of the IGF. 

Adam, you now speak of (in your email to MAG forwarded below)

> >We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
> >selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
> >select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  

But in reply to Everton's (of Brazilian government)paper on ' Elements to be
considered for structuring the IGF' which proposed some kind of
representative-ness of MAG members vis a vis their corresponding stakeholder
group (we know such representative-ness is never very absolute, whatever it
may mean)  you mentioned that 

>>"AG members should be appointed by and are accountable to their 
>>respective stakeholder group;" (POINT MADE IN EVERTON'S PAPER)
>
>comment: I am uncomfortable with this.  I don't see how I could be 
>accountable to global civil society (nor how any government member, for 
>example, could be accountable to all
>governments.)  I see my role as acting as a connector between CS 
>organizations and the advisory group.  I will do my best to represent 
>what I understand to be principles and positions I believe to be 
>important to global civil society, but I cannot see a way for us to 
>realistically be accountable to our respective stakeholder groups.
>
>I'm concerned this notion of accountability could only be achieved by 
>adopting separated processes in which the four major stakeholder 
>groupings would reach agreement on issues and bring them to the 
>advisory group.  i.e. each would hold its own consultations, come to 
>agreement on positions, and then enter into some discussion or 
>negotiation with the other groups once in the AG setting.  Sounds a bit 
>like a Bureau.

How do you reconcile this with your present proposal for each stakeholder
selecting two people for each session? I am not trying to do nitpicking on
your statements here, but at present the only thing IGF does is to organize
a conference, and selecting speakers is THE main task here. And your
suggestion for how to best accomplish this 'main task' doesn't correspond
with how you see MAG member's decision making power and their
representative-ness of their stakeholder group.


I only mean to use the above case to argue for open 'admission' of the level
of power MAG exerts and its some degree of representative nature - and its
legitimization and structuration in an honest and clear manner - which an
IGF-authorized MAG will do better than acting as if it only advises the SG
and has no powers. 

In your reply to Everton's paper, you also seem to have a problem with his
proposal that MAG publishes its proceedings and decisions. 

>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions." (EVERTON)
>
>comment: this seems contrary to what I thought we had agreed on 
>Tuesday.  Rather than "publish its proceedings and decisions" I suggest 
>the secretariat should publish a summary of discussions of AG meetings. 

I do not understand what problem you have with MAG publishing its
proceedings and decisions (and if MAG is a central part of IGF, TA seems to
suggest it must do so). I wouldn't normally associate this kind of position
with a CS member - governments are more likely to hold such positions. 

And again what's CS's problem with clearly laying down the 'process' and not
'annual event' nature of IGF - of which one important part is that MAG
should 'officially' and 'substantively' meet between IGF meetings.

>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;"
(EVERTON)
>
>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this.

Again. On Everton's suggestion

>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their representatives to the AG 
>according to its own procedure, which should be transparent, democratic 
>and inclusive; "

The main problem you have raised is of ensuring cross-MS groups diversity
issues - like geo- and gender. I think that's not the main problem (each
group can be asked to ensure enough diversity within their choices, and CS
mostly does it already). The main problem is that unlike other stakeholder
groups it is difficult to organize 'one process' of selecting reps from CS.
This problem will always remain, but Everton's suggestion still may hold
some possible gains for CS and needs to be considered more seriously.


>Need to be careful the AG does not become 
>an executive, but interprets and implements in good faith and in a 
>transparent and open manner what we receive from stakeholders. 

All representative structures do the same, as they also take decisions (if
that's what is meant by becoming an executive). MS structures have some
unique qualities but also share much with representative governance
structures we are all aware of in pre-info society world.   

I will like to discuss these positions and alternatives here in the run-up
to the IGC sponsored workshop on 'fulfilling the mandate of the IGF'. 

Parminder  
 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
> 
> For info, sent the following to the advisory group last night.
> 
> Couple of things deleted and a comment.  Quoted text is what's on the
> AG list.  I recognize some flaws. But best I can think of. Might get
> numbers below 10.  I doubt it will be adopted ...
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >Dear Markus,
> >
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >But I agree with
> 
> (names - snip)
> 
> >there are too many people
> >on the list.
> >
> >If there was one unanimous negative message from Athens it was there
> >were too many speakers. In my opinion it is not acceptable for us to
> >publish a programme with so many participants.
> >
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >  But
> >I think we can fix both these problems, and also ensure good quality
> >speakers by allowing stakeholder groups to make further selections
> >(i.e. further reductions) from the list you sent today.
> >
> >We have recognized four main stakeholder groups: government, civil
> >society, private sector and the Internet technical bodies. That's how
> >membership of the advisory group seems to have been developed.  I can
> >hardly see a member of the advisory group that does not fit those
> >four groups.
> 
> 
> (thank you Meryem :-)
> 
> 
> >We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
> >selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
> >select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  We only use
> >the list sent earlier today, "Panellists.18.10.2007.doc".  No more
> >additions, no pulling names back of people who have dropped off along
> >the way.  There isn't time for even more argument.  If that doesn't
> >automatically give balance then we can tweak.
> >
> >However, in making selections stakeholder groups can move people from
> >one session to another.  The list is flexible.  We should know
> >people's strengths well enough to suggest if they can be moved in
> >this way.
> >
> >Some observers may feel they will not be represented.  And perhaps
> >observers could be offered one panelist or discussant for each
> >session: a total of three panelists and three discussants. That would
> >make a maximum of 9 on each session.  I am aware that the formulation
> >I'm suggesting won't automatically balance the number of
> >panelist/discussants on all sessions. But I hope it gets close.
> >
> >Stakeholders are not required to make 2 selections!
> >
> >I think we all know what the criteria should be: first we are looking
> >for people who are expert on the subject matter and we must pay close
> >attention to regional diversity and gender.  If there are obvious
> >gaps after this exercise is done then we can look again.
> >
> >If we follow this plan we might get the number at or below 10 for all
> >sessions, and all stakeholders should be equally satisfied or
> >dissatisfied.
> >
> >Perhaps stakeholders will select the same person, in which case
> >numbers will drop.  Let's keep selection blind (and honest!), names
> >to the secretariat and no sharing before hand.  This would allow for
> >the opportunity of chance selection of the same person, so reducing
> >the numbers.
> >
> >People who are unfortunate and not selected can perhaps have their
> >names passed to the moderators as first choice
> >questioners/contributors from the audience.
> >
> >We must reduce the number of participants.
> >
> >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 wsis at ngocongo.org  Mon Oct 22 13:13:28 2007
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:13:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Up date on renewal of GAID structures (Strategy Council and Steering Committee)
Message-ID: <200710221712.l9MHCkLr026028@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

As indicated in my previous e-mails, the renewal of the membership of GAID
structures was postponed, to allow for greater consultation among
stakeholders' groups. The deadline for nominations is 30 November 2007. We
therefore have until that date to come out with a CS self-organised
recommendation on the membership of both the Steering Committee and the
Strategy Council. Is there anyone among you willing to moderate any of these
self-nomination processes?

 

Our problem so far is that we have not yet any idea of who, among the
outgoing StratC and Steering Committee members, will be maintained and which
ones will go out. The GAID Secretariat had asked all outgoing members to
express their interest to continue. 

 

As regards the Steering Committee, I understood that both Titi and Renate
informed the GAID Secretariat of their interest to continue one more year.
But there is no more information so far on who would stay on Board. There
were also some discussions on whether the Steering Committee membership
should be increased to 12 members (currently 10), but there is not yet any
definite information on this (hopefully this would be one more for CS). 

 

As for the Strategy Council, it is understood that approximately one-third
of the membership should rotate. But I have very little information of who
expressed the willingness to continue. Out of 10 CS members so far, this
would mean that 3 or 4 new members should be identified. But the deadline
for expression of renewal by outgoing members is also 30 November, meaning
that we would not be able to know before 30 Nov. who would go out.

 

We would anyway need to have 2 parallel processes to go with by 30 November,
in identifying one individual for the Steering Committee membership. Any
process such as this one would approximately need one month to be finalised,
so that we need to start both no later that end October (next week!). 

 

A note by the GAID secretariat might be circulated soon, but I preferred to
forward you what we knew so far!

 

Let me remind that the deadlines for the nominations and appointment
processes are as follows:

 


 

GAID Steering Committee

GAID Strategy Council


Deadline for expression of renewal by outgoing members

 

15 August 2007

 

30 November 2007


Deadline for new nominations for membership 

 

30 November 2007

 

30 November 2007


Announcement of the Appointment of new members

 

End of December 2007

 

End of December 2007


Office taking of the new members

 

1 April 2008

 

1 April 2008


Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership

May 2008

Kuala Lumpur

May 2008

Kuala Lumpur

 

All the best, 

 

Philippe

 

 

Philippe Dam
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/dafa2f36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/dafa2f36/attachment.txt>

From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Oct 22 13:31:53 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:31:53 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br>

The same happens in Brazil, albeit in a more sophisticated fashion.
Certain services might be totally blocked (like a ssh connection, or the
mx port 25 if you want to run a mail server in your home), or degraded
(like p2p and voip traffic). The big broadband operators recognize they
do it and say that, as they are the good and wonderful people they are,
they are doing this to protect us, their "valuable", dummy customers.
Anatel, our FCC, feels powerless to do anything on this (or is afraid
to), except in extreme cases, like when BR Telecom blocked Skype traffic
altogether.

So, user traffic is blocked, manipulated, degraded, or outrightly peeked
at (and selectively recorded at incredibly high speeds, like the
infamous AT&T+NSA practice denounced by EFF in the USA) in nearly all
countries. It seems fashionable to single out China, Cuba and a few
other countries (like the RSF list of baddies) as the villains, but the
USA and many other "democracies" are doing the same (with more or less
sophistication).

Net neutrality! Where? Where?

[] fraterno

--c.a.

Rui Correia wrote:

> Dear All
> 
> I thought this is pertinent on these forums.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rui
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: t r u t h o u t <messenger at truthout.org>
> Date: 20 Oct 2007 01:50
> Subject: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> To: correia.rui at gmail.com
> 
> t r u t h o u t | 10.19
> 
> Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml
> 
> Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907R.shtml
> Peter Svensson, reporting for The Associated Press, writes: "Comcast Corp.
> actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition
> of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The
> Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic
> example yet of data discrimination by a US Internet service provider."
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online; J. Sri Raman writes on the return of
> Benazir Bhutto; enormous problems in management lead to criminal probe into
> Iraq construction of US embassy; power plant rejected over carbon dioxide in
> Kansas for first time in US history; historic bill in Senate to fight
> warming affecting every major segment of the nation's economy; Bush aide
> rejects climate goal; Guatemala union heads killed; Carolyn Maloney writes
> on battling the birth control price hike; Marie Cocco of Truthdig on
> Medicare; Tom Philpott of Grist.org interviews Michael Pollan; and more ...
> Browse our continually updating front page at http://www.truthout.org

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Oct 22 13:49:26 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 02:49:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
In-Reply-To: <20071022090442.D29F16784E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20071022090442.D29F16784E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p0624081ec34288f6c94a@[192.168.1.162]>

Parminder,

This deserves more time/thought than I have for a couple of days.

Overall -- I think if the MAG were created early 
there is much it could do, and it would be able 
to do things in a way that better reflected 
public comment. But it doesn't matter what the 
group's called, MAG, AG, Bureau, bureau, if it's 
not created until August 2008 nothing will 
improve.

I think the MAG has been responsible for helping 
to convene meetings, not organize the 
"intersessional" process (don't like the idea of 
intersessional!)  No one's discussed IGF as a 
process of dialogue beyond the MAG encouraging 
dynamic coalitions.  It gets more like an annual 
conference and only an annual conference, and 
that's bad. This could be an important issue for 
the workshop to consider.  When the Tunis Agenda 
asked the SG "to convene a new forum for 
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue." Does it mean 
a meeting (in effect 5 annual meetings), or does 
it mean an ongoing process. To me 
"multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" suggests 
ongoing process.  So that's grossly missing.

Adam



At 2:34 PM +0530 10/22/07, Parminder wrote:
>I will like to relate the problem that MAG is facing (in speakers selection)
>in coming to terms with the global variety and vastness of the issues - and
>the people and constituencies that are interested in these issues - that IGF
>is supposed to deal with, with the debates on the structure of MAG and the
>IGF.
>
>Many who exclusively advocate a win-win multi-stakeholder structure for
>global governance -where all those interested can walk in and express
>themselves, and the outcomes will be some grand magical average of these
>expressions - may need to rethink the workability of such dispensations.
>Some degree of representative-ness and exercise of power on others behalf -
>balanced with as elaborate structures of transparency and accountability as
>possible - is an essential element of any governance structure.
>
>I have heard some MAG CS members making much of how MAG really doesn't wield
>any power, and merely acts as a conduit from the various stakeholders,
>expressing themselves at open consultations, and otherwise, to the Secretary
>General (SG), who really wields all power that there is in the system. And
>excuse me to say this, such a stance is disingenuous. Disguised power is
>worse than open abuse of power, since it denies the legitimacy of, and
>frustrates, any attempts at needed correctives...
>
>In my view, it is better that MAG (under whatever name, bec it cant then be
>a 'advisory group') has its power derived directly from the IGF (whatever it
>is) than from the Sec General. After all there is no real executive power
>meant to be exercised as per Tunis Agenda, and only soft power of agenda
>setting, debating, connecting agencies, giving recommendations etc. A MS
>group can handle such power. 
>
>The issue of lining up speakers, while keeping sessions productive, clearly
>brings to the forth the problem of clear decision-making by the IGF, which
>will only keep compounding with time. We know that MAG doesnot just
>implement what is stated in open consultations. In any case, just try and
>hold the 'open' consultations in Rio or New Delhi and one will go away with
>a very different output... So lets recognize the limits of this soft
>structure of - we don't decide anything, everyone is allowed to speak, and
>nothing really comes out specifically, and people are having a good time -
>while there is no progress on developing urgently required public polices
>for the Internet, a process which the IGF is supposed to primarily assist
>in.  It is important to engage in a serious discussion on what structures of
>MAG and IGF can help us meet the mandate of the IGF.
>
>Adam, you now speak of (in your email to MAG forwarded below)
>
>>  >We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
>>  >selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
>  > >select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.
>
>But in reply to Everton's (of Brazilian government)paper on ' Elements to be
>considered for structuring the IGF' which proposed some kind of
>representative-ness of MAG members vis a vis their corresponding stakeholder
>group (we know such representative-ness is never very absolute, whatever it
>may mean)  you mentioned that
>
>>>"AG members should be appointed by and are accountable to their
>>>respective stakeholder group;" (POINT MADE IN EVERTON'S PAPER)
>>
>>comment: I am uncomfortable with this.  I don't see how I could be
>>accountable to global civil society (nor how any government member, for
>>example, could be accountable to all
>>governments.)  I see my role as acting as a connector between CS
>>organizations and the advisory group.  I will do my best to represent
>>what I understand to be principles and positions I believe to be
>>important to global civil society, but I cannot see a way for us to
>>realistically be accountable to our respective stakeholder groups.
>>
>>I'm concerned this notion of accountability could only be achieved by
>>adopting separated processes in which the four major stakeholder
>>groupings would reach agreement on issues and bring them to the
>>advisory group.  i.e. each would hold its own consultations, come to
>>agreement on positions, and then enter into some discussion or
>>negotiation with the other groups once in the AG setting.  Sounds a bit
>>like a Bureau.
>
>How do you reconcile this with your present proposal for each stakeholder
>selecting two people for each session? I am not trying to do nitpicking on
>your statements here, but at present the only thing IGF does is to organize
>a conference, and selecting speakers is THE main task here. And your
>suggestion for how to best accomplish this 'main task' doesn't correspond
>with how you see MAG member's decision making power and their
>representative-ness of their stakeholder group.
>
>
>I only mean to use the above case to argue for open 'admission' of the level
>of power MAG exerts and its some degree of representative nature - and its
>legitimization and structuration in an honest and clear manner - which an
>IGF-authorized MAG will do better than acting as if it only advises the SG
>and has no powers.
>
>In your reply to Everton's paper, you also seem to have a problem with his
>proposal that MAG publishes its proceedings and decisions.
>
>>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions." (EVERTON)
>>
>>comment: this seems contrary to what I thought we had agreed on
>>Tuesday.  Rather than "publish its proceedings and decisions" I suggest
>>the secretariat should publish a summary of discussions of AG meetings.
>
>I do not understand what problem you have with MAG publishing its
>proceedings and decisions (and if MAG is a central part of IGF, TA seems to
>suggest it must do so). I wouldn't normally associate this kind of position
>with a CS member - governments are more likely to hold such positions.
>
>And again what's CS's problem with clearly laying down the 'process' and not
>'annual event' nature of IGF - of which one important part is that MAG
>should 'officially' and 'substantively' meet between IGF meetings.
>
>>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;"
>(EVERTON)
>>
>>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this.
>
>Again. On Everton's suggestion
>
>>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their representatives to the AG
>>according to its own procedure, which should be transparent, democratic
>>and inclusive; "
>
>The main problem you have raised is of ensuring cross-MS groups diversity
>issues - like geo- and gender. I think that's not the main problem (each
>group can be asked to ensure enough diversity within their choices, and CS
>mostly does it already). The main problem is that unlike other stakeholder
>groups it is difficult to organize 'one process' of selecting reps from CS.
>This problem will always remain, but Everton's suggestion still may hold
>some possible gains for CS and needs to be considered more seriously.
>
>
>>Need to be careful the AG does not become
>>an executive, but interprets and implements in good faith and in a
>  >transparent and open manner what we receive from stakeholders.
>
>All representative structures do the same, as they also take decisions (if
>that's what is meant by becoming an executive). MS structures have some
>unique qualities but also share much with representative governance
>structures we are all aware of in pre-info society world.  
>
>I will like to discuss these positions and alternatives here in the run-up
>to the IGC sponsored workshop on 'fulfilling the mandate of the IGF'.
>
>Parminder 
>
>________________________________________________
>Parminder Jeet Singh
>IT for Change, Bangalore
>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>www.ITforChange.net
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Mon Oct 22 15:22:13 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:22:13 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ec34288f6c94a@[192.168.1.162]>
Message-ID: <C342C505.E128%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Adam,

On 10/22/07 7:49 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> I think the MAG has been responsible for helping
> to convene meetings, not organize the
> "intersessional" process (don't like the idea of
> intersessional!)  No one's discussed IGF as a
> process of dialogue beyond the MAG encouraging
> dynamic coalitions.  It gets more like an annual
> conference and only an annual conference, and
> that's bad. This could be an important issue for
> the workshop to consider.  When the Tunis Agenda

It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should
indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop.   Moreover, this
condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the
IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis
mandate, without any public discussion or agreement.  As the topic is
potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the
caucus laid out two years ago could come to the event prepared to advance
some ideas on ways to bridge the gap---both ideal configurations and
ratcheted back median positions that might actually be politically viable
given the diversity of preferences.

Cheers,

Bill


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Mon Oct 22 15:26:43 2007
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:26:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some
	Internet Traffic
Message-ID: <s71cc152.008@gwia203.syr.edu>

I agree with Carlos, across the network of networks aka as the Internet, many nets, both corporate and university and governmental, do the same/similar traffic shaping.

This is mainly to stop bandwidth hogs from, well, hogging all the bandwidth. It's mainly about the money tis true.

You could see that as a neutral policy prescription or a discriminatory treatment of bandwidth hogs, oh I mean users of p2p services ; )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> ca at rits.org.br 10/22/2007 1:31 PM >>>
The same happens in Brazil, albeit in a more sophisticated fashion.
Certain services might be totally blocked (like a ssh connection, or the
mx port 25 if you want to run a mail server in your home), or degraded
(like p2p and voip traffic). The big broadband operators recognize they
do it and say that, as they are the good and wonderful people they are,
they are doing this to protect us, their "valuable", dummy customers.
Anatel, our FCC, feels powerless to do anything on this (or is afraid
to), except in extreme cases, like when BR Telecom blocked Skype traffic
altogether.

So, user traffic is blocked, manipulated, degraded, or outrightly peeked
at (and selectively recorded at incredibly high speeds, like the
infamous AT&T+NSA practice denounced by EFF in the USA) in nearly all
countries. It seems fashionable to single out China, Cuba and a few
other countries (like the RSF list of baddies) as the villains, but the
USA and many other "democracies" are doing the same (with more or less
sophistication).

Net neutrality! Where? Where?

[] fraterno

--c.a.

Rui Correia wrote:

> Dear All
> 
> I thought this is pertinent on these forums.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rui
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: t r u t h o u t <messenger at truthout.org>
> Date: 20 Oct 2007 01:50
> Subject: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> To: correia.rui at gmail.com 
> 
> t r u t h o u t | 10.19
> 
> Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml 
> 
> Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907R.shtml 
> Peter Svensson, reporting for The Associated Press, writes: "Comcast Corp.
> actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition
> of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The
> Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic
> example yet of data discrimination by a US Internet service provider."
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online; J. Sri Raman writes on the return of
> Benazir Bhutto; enormous problems in management lead to criminal probe into
> Iraq construction of US embassy; power plant rejected over carbon dioxide in
> Kansas for first time in US history; historic bill in Senate to fight
> warming affecting every major segment of the nation's economy; Bush aide
> rejects climate goal; Guatemala union heads killed; Carolyn Maloney writes
> on battling the birth control price hike; Marie Cocco of Truthdig on
> Medicare; Tom Philpott of Grist.org interviews Michael Pollan; and more ...
> Browse our continually updating front page at http://www.truthout.org 

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br 
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org 
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Oct 22 15:57:30 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:57:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <471D00AA.5040404@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Is seems Russia is at least partially being cut off the Internet anyway. ;-)

"While "walling off the Russian 'Net" as a response to their illegal
activities, as one analyst suggested, is not a plausible answer for the
problem, until the Russian Government develops a more helpful and
law-abiding attitude about Internet matters, the Web will have to learn to
protect itself in any way it can against these worst-of-the-worst Russian
cyber-criminals."

Ralf

<http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1887>

Russian Company Outed as Mother of all Cybercrime

Kelly O'Connell, IBLS Editor
Monday, October 22, 2007

A Russian company named the Russian Business Network, or RBN has been
identified as a "Conduit for Cybercrime" by the Washington Post and
blasted by the anti-spam organization Spamhaus for being " ...among the
world's worst spammer, child-pornography, malware, phishing and
cybercrime-hosting networks." The security vendor iDefense advises clients
to block all traffic from RBN. Recently, the Bank of India was
cyber-attacked, with much of the activity emanating from RBN servers. Yet,
the company founder claims it is all just a case of mistaken identity.
Russian officials have shown no interest in shuttering this leviathan of
Internet cyber-crime.

Amazingly, the Washington Post reports those using RBN servers are
"responsible for about half of last year's incidents of "phishing,"" or
ID, credit card and banking theft. The large California-based Internet
security firm, Symantec, claims RBN is responsible for hosting websites
conducting "a major portion of the world's cybercrime and profiteering."

Worse than the financial crimes, RBN hosts websites that procure and sell
child-pornography. Symantec's report states RBN "is literally a shelter
for all illegal activities, be it child pornography, online scams, piracy
or other illicit operations." In addition, the company appears to have
help from the old U.S.S.R. mafia, and obviously have support of the
Russian Government by way of bribery.

European police agency Interpol says that these types of shadowy Internet
companies are able to thrive in places where the rule of law is poorly
established. Ronald K. Noble, Interpol secretary general said,
"...organized cybercrime has taken root in countries that don't have
response mechanisms, laws, infrastructure and investigative support set up
to respond to the threat quickly."

RBN is not a large Internet Service Provider, but it does offer features
most others cannot match. In exchange for pricing plans that are up to
ten-times higher than a normal company, or around $600 per month, RBN
offers what is known as "bulletproof hosting." This means that, no matter
what activities are conducted on the site, or laws are broken, the company
will only superficially acknowledge any complaints. If a serious
illegality occurs, RBN might shut the offending site down, for a few
hours, at best.

While American and European police agencies have attempted to get access
to close RBN, they have had no luck, for several reasons. First, the
company itself does not break any laws, just the companies that buy its
hosting. Second, usually the RBN-hosted criminals do not attack Russian
Web users, so there is no in-state crime to investigate. Further, Russia
is one of the least cooperative countries, when it comes to fighting
cyber-crime originating within its borders. Then again, the business
itself does not even exist. It has no license, there is no named owner,
and even the Internet address itself lists dummy names as proprietors.

Internet providers in other countries have become so exasperated by RBN"s
continued illegalities that they decided to do something very rare on the
Internet -- they decided to wall off the entire server from any of their
users. When one company did this, their spam and phishing attacks
plummeted exponentially.

There is an interesting social aspect to how Russia became a hub of
cyber-criminals. First, it does not help that the Russian economy is in
very bad shape. Second, there are a lot of highly trained code-writers who
are always looking for ways to supplement their meager incomes.
Interestingly, there has developed the widely-held belief that writing
malicious viruses and code is no worse than working as a designer at a
munitions company. Someone is going to design these potentially harmful
creations and make money from them. But the software designers are
personally innocent of wrong as long as they do not themselves use the bad
code to go after others. And then you have the fact that it is almost
inconceivable to get arrested in Russia for cyber-crimes, even if the
Government becomes aware of the activity.

Since the Japanese anti-virus security company Trend Micro recently
reported discovering a "virus cesspool" of over 400 viruses on one Russian
server alone, the problem is not just in one company, but is a
society-wide issue. While "walling off the Russian 'Net" as a response to
their illegal activities, as one analyst suggested, is not a plausible
answer for the problem, until the Russian Government develops a more
helpful and law-abiding attitude about Internet matters, the Web will have
to learn to protect itself in any way it can against these
worst-of-the-worst Russian cyber-criminals.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 22 16:21:38 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:21:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /
  internet
In-Reply-To: <471D00AA.5040404@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
 <471D00AA.5040404@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <20071022202140.4BE0B2BC002@mxr.isoc.bg>

the response of the Russians:


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/10/russian_business_network_respo.html?nav=rss_blog


An individual claiming to represent the Russian Business Network has 
denied media reports (including 
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202461.html>a 
Washington Post story I wrote that ran last week) the company 
provides Web hosting services to numerous cyber criminal operations.

Experts quoted in my story and others, the RBN representative said, 
were essentially wrong in their assessments. The response via a 
<http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/russian_network>Wired.com 
article by Ryan Singel, wherein a guy calling himself Tim Jaret had 
this to say:

"We can't understand on which basis these organizations have such an 
opinion about our company," Jaret of the Russian Business Network 
told Wired in an e-mail interview. "We can say that this is 
subjective opinion based on these organizations' guesswork."

Jaret told Wired that RBN has made efforts to respond to complaints 
of wrongdoing on its network. RBN's representative said the 
organization even tried unsuccessfully to work with anti-spam group 
<http://www.spamhaus.org/>Spamhaus, which currently includes all 
2,048 of RBN's Internet addresses 
<http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/listing.lasso?-op=cn&spammer=Russian%20Business%20Network>on 
its blacklist of known bad guys. Spamhaus says RBN is "noted for 
continuously hosting child pornography, malware, phishing and 
cybercrime, and it details information suggesting ties between known 
spammers and the St. Petersburg-based ISP.

First of all, Spamhaus doesn't so much work with ISPs and known 
malicious hosting providers as it does eventually de-list those that 
clean up their act. The fact that RBN's networks have been so 
prominently listed on Spamhaus' various blacklists for so long 
suggests that a great deal of malicious activity is still emanating 
from the organization's various networks.

Faced with such statements, perhaps it makes sense to ask which of 
the two scenarios seems more likely: That dozens of the world's 
leading computer crime and Internet security experts are simply wrong 
in pinning this activity on sites hosted by the Russian Business 
Network? Or that RBN is simply trying to throw up a smoke screen?

John Bambenek, a security incident handler with the 
<http://isc.sans.org/>SANS Internet Storm Center, which tracks 
hacking trends, called RBN's belated defense laughable.

"They're about as misunderstood as a senator soliciting sexual favors 
in an airport bathroom," Bambenek said. "When most of the world's 
cyber-miscreants are paying 10 times more for hosting on your 
network, you don't attract the business by accident"

Bambenek is referring to the starting prices that security giant 
Verisign said RBN charges for so-called "bulletproof hosting," or Web 
hosting for illegal sites that remain reachable regardless of the 
level of legal or technical pressure brought to bear on them. As I 
noted in my story, $600 is about ten times the amount most legitimate 
Web hosting providers charge per month for a dedicated Web site.

Jaret from RBN told Wired that the organization in fact "doesn't have 
any more criminal activity on its network than any other provider, 
and it responds to abuse reports submitted via e-mail and a telephone 
hotline. He claims the organization closes criminals' sites down 
within 24 hours of notification."

Interestingly, a tidbit from my interview with a Verisign analyst 
that didn't make it into the final story indicates that rather than 
shutting down domains that generate complaints, RBN has in the past 
chosen simply to up the price charged to the criminal groups that 
have rented Web space from the network.

Perhaps the most telling statement from RBN thus far comes at the end 
of the Wired article, in which Wired News asked RBN to provide the 
URLs for some legitimate customers. "Jaret says he couldn't oblige -- 
for legal reasons."




At 21:57 10/22/2007  +0200, you wrote:
>Is seems Russia is at least partially being cut off the Internet anyway. ;-)
>
>"While "walling off the Russian 'Net" as a response to their illegal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/34f08ebe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/34f08ebe/attachment.txt>

From nne75 at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 22 17:02:11 2007
From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:02:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /  internet
Message-ID: <556491.50946.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Very interesting - all the articles including the one on Wired.com.  Evidently
this is a network that is only based in Russia - like a tree whose trunk is the only visible thing -
the roots going too far and wide and the branches spreading too far and wide...

Maybe by the time we read this, the reorganization of network 'members' may already have been
concluded.

Question though: what is the correlation of a country's transparency index to its cybersecurity?

Nnenna

----- Original Message ----
From: Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 2:21:38 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web /  internet




the response of the Russians:





http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2007/10/russian_business_network_respo.html?nav=rss_blog





An individual claiming to represent the Russian Business
Network has denied media reports (including

a Washington Post story I wrote that ran last week) the company
provides Web hosting services to numerous cyber criminal operations.



Experts quoted in my story and others, the RBN representative said, were
essentially wrong in their assessments. The response via a

Wired.com article by Ryan Singel, wherein a guy calling
himself Tim Jaret had this to say: 


"We can't understand on which basis these organizations have such an
opinion about our company," Jaret of the Russian Business Network
told Wired in an e-mail interview. "We can say that this is
subjective opinion based on these organizations' guesswork."



Jaret told Wired that RBN has made efforts to respond to complaints of
wrongdoing on its network. RBN's representative said the organization
even tried unsuccessfully to work with anti-spam group
Spamhaus, which currently
includes all 2,048 of RBN's Internet addresses

on its blacklist of known bad guys. Spamhaus says RBN is "noted
for continuously hosting child pornography, malware, phishing and
cybercrime, and it details information suggesting ties between known
spammers and the St. Petersburg-based ISP.


First of all, Spamhaus doesn't so much work with ISPs and known malicious
hosting providers as it does eventually de-list those that clean up their
act. The fact that RBN's networks have been so prominently listed on
Spamhaus' various blacklists for so long suggests that a great deal of
malicious activity is still emanating from the organization's various
networks. 


Faced with such statements, perhaps it makes sense to ask which of the
two scenarios seems more likely: That dozens of the world's leading
computer crime and Internet security experts are simply wrong in pinning
this activity on sites hosted by the Russian Business Network? Or that
RBN is simply trying to throw up a smoke screen?


John Bambenek, a security incident handler with the
SANS Internet Storm Center,
which tracks hacking trends, called RBN's belated defense laughable.



"They're about as misunderstood as a senator soliciting sexual
favors in an airport bathroom," Bambenek said. "When most of
the world's cyber-miscreants are paying 10 times more for hosting on your
network, you don't attract the business by accident"


Bambenek is referring to the starting prices that security giant Verisign
said RBN charges for so-called "bulletproof hosting," or Web
hosting for illegal sites that remain reachable regardless of the level
of legal or technical pressure brought to bear on them. As I noted in my
story, $600 is about ten times the amount most legitimate Web hosting
providers charge per month for a dedicated Web site.


Jaret from RBN told Wired that the organization in fact "doesn't
have any more criminal activity on its network than any other provider,
and it responds to abuse reports submitted via e-mail and a telephone
hotline. He claims the organization closes criminals' sites down within
24 hours of notification."


Interestingly, a tidbit from my interview with a Verisign analyst that
didn't make it into the final story indicates that rather than shutting
down domains that generate complaints, RBN has in the past chosen simply
to up the price charged to the criminal groups that have rented Web space
from the network. 


Perhaps the most telling statement from RBN thus far comes at the end of
the Wired article, in which Wired News asked RBN to provide the URLs for
some legitimate customers. "Jaret says he couldn't oblige -- for
legal reasons."







At 21:57 10/22/2007  +0200, you wrote:

Is seems Russia is at least
partially being cut off the Internet anyway. ;-)


"While "walling off the Russian 'Net" as a response to
their illegal




__________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/7f2eddec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071022/7f2eddec/attachment.txt>

From veni at veni.com  Mon Oct 22 17:43:24 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:43:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] Russia plans to create independent web / 
  internet
In-Reply-To: <556491.50946.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <556491.50946.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20071022214321.29DED2BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>

At 14:02 10/22/2007  -0700, you wrote:
>Very interesting - all the articles including the one on Wired.com.  Evidently
>this is a network that is only based in Russia - like a tree whose 
>trunk is the only visible thing -
>the roots going too far and wide and the branches spreading too far 
>and wide...
>
>Maybe by the time we read this, the reorganization of network 
>'members' may already have been
>concluded.
>
>Question though: what is the correlation of a country's transparency 
>index to its cybersecurity?

There are other questions, too:
e.g. if they have not been able to solve some of their national 
problems vis-a-vis Internet as described in the article, can they try 
to solve the global problems [first]? I think one of the message we 
are bringing this year to Russia is that they can't continue to be 
part of the landscape, and believe that this is solving the problems 
of the Internet. When ISOC, ICANN, the IETF and others are suggesting 
larger participation of Russian engineers, officials, users, in the 
huge Internet arena, we do it, because we know it's good for the 
Internet users in Russia, but also - it makes the whole country 
allied with the most high-tech developed countries. The Russian 
engineers are good, so instead of using their skills for good things, 
among other to participate in the drafting of the RFCs, in the 
meetings of the IETF, in the international Internet forums, why waste 
them in activities, which are illegal. I am positive that sooner or 
later the Russians will understand there are ways to contribute, even 
if the country as a whole is not a high-tech one; the best way to do 
it is with the brains of your engineers.

Veni 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Oct 22 17:57:19 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:57:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
Message-ID: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>

http://blog.veni.com/?p=342

Read carefully Commissioner Kroes statement.
This seems far more important than a number of issues we are discussing here.

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  Mon Oct 22 18:10:11 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:10:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

It's important to understand the distinction between net neutrality, which means nondiscriminatory access to internet resources, and bandwidth management. The two have gotten confused. Networks have a right to manage their bandwidth. They don't have a right to block access to specific sites or applications, based on the content or competition at the site.


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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:32 PM
To: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; africa at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

The same happens in Brazil, albeit in a more sophisticated fashion.
Certain services might be totally blocked (like a ssh connection, or the
mx port 25 if you want to run a mail server in your home), or degraded
(like p2p and voip traffic). The big broadband operators recognize they
do it and say that, as they are the good and wonderful people they are,
they are doing this to protect us, their "valuable", dummy customers.
Anatel, our FCC, feels powerless to do anything on this (or is afraid
to), except in extreme cases, like when BR Telecom blocked Skype traffic
altogether.

So, user traffic is blocked, manipulated, degraded, or outrightly peeked
at (and selectively recorded at incredibly high speeds, like the
infamous AT&T+NSA practice denounced by EFF in the USA) in nearly all
countries. It seems fashionable to single out China, Cuba and a few
other countries (like the RSF list of baddies) as the villains, but the
USA and many other "democracies" are doing the same (with more or less
sophistication).

Net neutrality! Where? Where?

[] fraterno

--c.a.

Rui Correia wrote:

> Dear All
> 
> I thought this is pertinent on these forums.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Rui
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: t r u t h o u t <messenger at truthout.org>
> Date: 20 Oct 2007 01:50
> Subject: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> To: correia.rui at gmail.com
> 
> t r u t h o u t | 10.19
> 
> Go directly to our issues page: http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml
> 
> Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907R.shtml
> Peter Svensson, reporting for The Associated Press, writes: "Comcast Corp.
> actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition
> of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The interference, which The
> Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic
> example yet of data discrimination by a US Internet service provider."
> 
> 
> 
> Comcast interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
> subscribers to share files online; J. Sri Raman writes on the return of
> Benazir Bhutto; enormous problems in management lead to criminal probe into
> Iraq construction of US embassy; power plant rejected over carbon dioxide in
> Kansas for first time in US history; historic bill in Senate to fight
> warming affecting every major segment of the nation's economy; Bush aide
> rejects climate goal; Guatemala union heads killed; Carolyn Maloney writes
> on battling the birth control price hike; Marie Cocco of Truthdig on
> Medicare; Tom Philpott of Grist.org interviews Michael Pollan; and more ...
> Browse our continually updating front page at http://www.truthout.org

-- 
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor
***************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br   www.rits.org.br   www.coletivodigital.org.br
***************************************************************

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 22 18:55:16 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:55:16 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:10:11PM -0400,
 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 114 lines which said:

> It's important to understand the distinction between net neutrality,
> which means nondiscriminatory access to internet resources, and
> bandwidth management.

Besides playing with words, you do not explain how they are
different. If "managing bandwidth" mean shaping differently HTTP and
SIP, it *is* a violation of Net neutrality, even if SIP is not
"blocked".

> Networks have a right to manage their bandwidth.

This is a very vague statement. Is tearing down BitTorrent connections
(what Comcast does) "managing bandwidth"?

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 22 18:52:11 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:52:11 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Identity systems and privacy (was Re: New IGF community site)
In-Reply-To: <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +0200,
 Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote 
 a message of 61 lines which said:

> Given that the igf-online.net site prominently promotes OpenID, I
> think it is quite appropriate to discuss whether OpenID (in its most
> straightforward usage mode) violates the fundamental civil society
> position that no outside third party should be easily able to track
> a person's significant online activities.

An OpenID provider is not an *outside* third party since you choose
it. Like an Internet access provider, it is a party you have to trust,
at least partially.
 
> "Being your own OpenID provider" is AFAIK not possible behind NAT.

Well, anyway, it is not realistic for most users, even with a public
IP address. My point was not that Joe Average should become his own
identity provider, but that many people can do it, so Joe Average will
have a large choice of providers, probably with at least one with a
privacy practice he likes.

That's quite different from the X509 / SSL landscape, where the
providers are only a few (anyone can be a provider but, if your
certificate is not in MSIE, you do not really count).
 
> I would suggest that this Caucus should adop the position that
> only this kind of approach to automated or semi-automated
> identity management is acceptable.

It seems much too premature, since I do not think that many people
here worked on the identity problem yet.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Oct 22 19:16:31 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 19:16:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] 
>Besides playing with words, you do not explain how they are
>different. 

I will later in a full-length paper.

>If "managing bandwidth" mean shaping differently 
>HTTP and SIP, it *is* a violation of Net neutrality, 
>even if SIP is not "blocked".

Nonsense. Is the diffserv protocol of the IETF, a violation of net
neutrality? Is any use of QoS inherently bad? This is the kind of
overreaction that can kill the case for real NN. Its ridiculous for
public policy to legislate specific packet forwarding algorithms. 

>> Networks have a right to manage their bandwidth.
>
>This is a very vague statement. 

It's a short one, true. Needs elaboration, admittedly. Just like your
assertion that "shaping differently 
HTTP and SIP *is* a violation of Net neutrality".

>Is tearing down BitTorrent connections
>(what Comcast does) "managing bandwidth"?

No, it blocks a specific application. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Oct 22 19:38:17 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:38:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Identity systems and privacy (was Re: New IGF
 community site)
In-Reply-To: <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch> <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <471D3469.6070907@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Stephane Bortzmeyer schrieb:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:13:28AM +0200,

>> I would suggest that this Caucus should adop the position that only
>> this kind of approach to automated or semi-automated identity
>> management is acceptable.
> 
> It seems much too premature, since I do not think that many people here
> worked on the identity problem yet.
There are quite a few, in fact, even among us here. We aleady had a
well-attended workshop on Internet ID management at IGF 2006 and will have
another one in Rio. Mary Rundle and myself have organized it, building on
the work of the dynamic coalition on privacy.

Norbert is generally right in that the IGC has always supported most
privacy-friendly positions. We might need a bit more discussion for more
specific positions, but the direction should be clear.

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 dan at musicunbound.com  Mon Oct 22 19:51:05 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:51:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some
 Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References:  <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.t
 ruthout.org>
 <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com>
 <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <p06230901c342e134d56b@[10.0.1.3]>

Let me try to clarify Milton's statement (with which I fully agree).

There is a difference between managing bandwidth generally, and picking on
certain applications to block them utterly (resetting a BitTorrent upload
does not "manage bandwidth", it abjectly *blocks* the operation of the
application with no analysis of bandwidth per se).

While I can occasionally see *some* moderate justification for
*prioritizing* certain applications over others in specific circumstances
(emergency communications, other real-time applications like VoIP as a
single universal data class without application- or
origin/destination-specific differentiation), specifically *disadvantaging*
applications because they have some vague supposed secondary link to some
unresolved issue of possible copyright infringement is a sharply different
policy when it comes to handling finite bandwidth resources.  Heck, there
isn't even a determination that the BitTorrent data stream in any specific
case is *large* or *infringing* and so this is a very crude step at
targeting supposedly nefarious behavior by users.

At the very least, Comcast should tell users up front that "there are
limits" to what users may do on their network (otherwise it constitutes
fraudulent advertising when they say you can send and receive any data
without constraint).  But beyond that, they should not be allowed to
*interrupt* data transmission intentionally (above and beyond the effects
of general congestion or general bandwidth caps).

There is a great blog post by MAP's Harold Feld on this recently that I
recommend:

http://www.wetmachine.com/item/912

Dan

PS -- Net neutrality is about common carriage.  As long as your policies
are identical for all people who wish carriage (of themselves or of their
data), then it is neutral in the sense intended by those who use the term.
When you start differentiating by origin or destination, or by content, it
becomes non-neutral.  Differentiating by application type is a bit
trickier, but if it is allowed at all, there needs to be very careful
circumscription of what cases and what sorts of methods can be justified.
The default policy should be no differentiation by application, and each
case of differentiation should be required to prove its case in relation to
that default.

The best public policy would be simply to disallow any application-based
differentiation at all, which would underscore the incentive to deal with
bandwidth in the most efficient manner: by building out the infrastructure
(or working to improve data compression protocols) to satisfy bandwidth
peak demand.

And if there is a problem with bandwidth usage that must be managed, then
either let congestion manage it by force or impose bandwidth limits on
users and enforce those policies on a bandwidth basis.  Equating
applications with bandwidth is at best imperfect and at worst a ticket to
abject gatekeeper abuse.



At 10:55 PM +0000 10/22/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 06:10:11PM -0400,
> Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote
> a message of 114 lines which said:
>
>> It's important to understand the distinction between net neutrality,
>> which means nondiscriminatory access to internet resources, and
>> bandwidth management.
>
>Besides playing with words, you do not explain how they are
>different. If "managing bandwidth" mean shaping differently HTTP and
>SIP, it *is* a violation of Net neutrality, even if SIP is not
>"blocked".
>
>> Networks have a right to manage their bandwidth.
>
>This is a very vague statement. Is tearing down BitTorrent connections
>(what Comcast does) "managing bandwidth"?
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Oct 22 19:58:39 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:58:39 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet
 Traffic
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <471D392F.7030906@rits.org.br>

Milton, this distinction is not flip-flop -- it is hard to
really separate both. One example: you download flawlessly on http port 
80 and get bogged down in a p2p transfer, even when you know for sure 
both sides are well connected. This is not traffic management, or it is, 
with a purpose: exactly to go against net neutrality for reasons the 
user does not know about and/or have not been negotiated with him/her.

I have signed several broadband contracts, and I have never seen a 
clause which tells me they are entitled to prohibit me from using a 
certain port or protocol service from my home machine; they do say I am 
entitled to xxx Mb/s up and yyy Mb/s down, and this is as far as they 
should go in bandwidth management -- of course they go far beyond this.

They are just making sure you keep within what they estimate is the 
usage of their bandwidth resources which gives them the most money -- 
business as usual...

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> It's important to understand the distinction between net neutrality,
> which means nondiscriminatory access to internet resources, and
> bandwidth management. The two have gotten confused. Networks have a
> right to manage their bandwidth. They don't have a right to block
> access to specific sites or applications, based on the content or
> competition at the site.
> 
> 
> 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: Carlos Afonso
> [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 1:32 PM To:
> Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org;
> africa at wsis-cs.org Subject: [governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd:
> Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
> 
> The same happens in Brazil, albeit in a more sophisticated fashion. 
> Certain services might be totally blocked (like a ssh connection, or
> the mx port 25 if you want to run a mail server in your home), or
> degraded (like p2p and voip traffic). The big broadband operators
> recognize they do it and say that, as they are the good and wonderful
> people they are, they are doing this to protect us, their "valuable",
> dummy customers. Anatel, our FCC, feels powerless to do anything on
> this (or is afraid to), except in extreme cases, like when BR Telecom
> blocked Skype traffic altogether.
> 
> So, user traffic is blocked, manipulated, degraded, or outrightly
> peeked at (and selectively recorded at incredibly high speeds, like
> the infamous AT&T+NSA practice denounced by EFF in the USA) in nearly
> all countries. It seems fashionable to single out China, Cuba and a
> few other countries (like the RSF list of baddies) as the villains,
> but the USA and many other "democracies" are doing the same (with
> more or less sophistication).
> 
> Net neutrality! Where? Where?
> 
> [] fraterno
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Rui Correia wrote:
> 
>> Dear All
>> 
>> I thought this is pertinent on these forums.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Rui
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: t r u t h o u t
>> <messenger at truthout.org> Date: 20 Oct 2007 01:50 Subject: Comcast
>> Blocks Some Internet Traffic To: correia.rui at gmail.com
>> 
>> t r u t h o u t | 10.19
>> 
>> Go directly to our issues page:
>> http://www.truthout.org/issues.shtml
>> 
>> Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic 
>> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101907R.shtml Peter Svensson,
>> reporting for The Associated Press, writes: "Comcast Corp. actively
>> interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet 
>> subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the
>> tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally. The
>> interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through
>> nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data
>> discrimination by a US Internet service provider."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Comcast interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet
>>  subscribers to share files online; J. Sri Raman writes on the
>> return of Benazir Bhutto; enormous problems in management lead to
>> criminal probe into Iraq construction of US embassy; power plant
>> rejected over carbon dioxide in Kansas for first time in US
>> history; historic bill in Senate to fight warming affecting every
>> major segment of the nation's economy; Bush aide rejects climate
>> goal; Guatemala union heads killed; Carolyn Maloney writes on
>> battling the birth control price hike; Marie Cocco of Truthdig on 
>> Medicare; Tom Philpott of Grist.org interviews Michael Pollan; and
>> more ... Browse our continually updating front page at
>> http://www.truthout.org
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Oct 23 00:14:26 2007
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:14:26 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
In-Reply-To: <C342C505.E128%drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <C342C505.E128%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <p06240808c3432502b5f7@[192.168.1.3]>



>Hi Adam,
>
>On 10/22/07 7:49 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>  I think the MAG has been responsible for helping
>>  to convene meetings, not organize the
>>  "intersessional" process (don't like the idea of
>>  intersessional!)  No one's discussed IGF as a
>>  process of dialogue beyond the MAG encouraging
>>  dynamic coalitions.  It gets more like an annual
>>  conference and only an annual conference, and
>>  that's bad. This could be an important issue for
>>  the workshop to consider.  When the Tunis Agenda
>
>It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should
>indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop.   Moreover, this
>condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the
>IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis
>mandate, without any public discussion or agreement.  As the topic is
>potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the
>caucus laid out two years ago


Bill, could you send a copy to the list.

Thanks,

Adam



>could come to the event prepared to advance
>some ideas on ways to bridge the gap---both ideal configurations and
>ratcheted back median positions that might actually be politically viable
>given the diversity of preferences.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Tue Oct 23 04:33:24 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:33:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <p06240808c3432502b5f7@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <C3437E74.E158%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi,

We might as well have a new subject line that matches the topic in the event
that anyone wants to take up Parminder's suggestion of a list suggestion
that feeds into the IGC workshop at Rio
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=91.  [BTW that page needs updating
with speaker names etc and a brief description suitable for the program]

On 10/23/07 6:14 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>> It's long been clear that it's just an annual conference, and this should
>> indeed be a key point of discussion in the workshop.   Moreover, this
>> condition can't be disembedded from the larger range of ways in which the
>> IGF has deviated significantly from both the early visions and the Tunis
>> mandate, without any public discussion or agreement.  As the topic is
>> potentially contentious, it would useful if people who agree with what the
>> caucus laid out two years ago
> 
> 
> Bill, could you send a copy to the list.

I was referring in the first instance to the Aug. 05 response to the WGIG
report, which is on the site you built
http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf, but also to the thrust of the IGC
discussions and prepcom interventions before and after. The relevant bit is
below, with a few comments interspersed on some points that may merit
consideration in thinking about the Tunis Agenda mandate.  Obviously, the
text is quite schematic as it was largely a fleshing out of the WGIG's, and
was focused more on listing functions than on spelling out the institutional
configuration that would be needed to sustain their performance.  Arguably,
the latter is nevertheless implicit.


35. The caucus supports the establishment of a new forum to address the
broad agenda of Internet governance issues, provided it is truly global,
inclusive, and multi-stakeholder in composition. Stakeholders from all
sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers.

36. The caucus recommends that Sub-Committee A create a multi-stakeholder
working group to address the evolution of the forum, including aspects of
scope, structure, membership and modalities, funding and timeline. Initial
comments which could feed into such a process are noted below.

37. The forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized
international organization, but rather should be organized as a legally
free-standing entity. If this is impossible, then the forum should be
organized directly under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary
General.

[NB: This was intended to draw a bright line between IGF and ITU in
particular, given the sort of statements made during WSIS by Russia etc. I
don't think we imagined at the time that free standing would mean largely
unfunded with no institutional capacity to do anything other than manage the
frenzied and ad hoc assemblage of an annual conference.]

38. The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like
treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when the
parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could be a
mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum should
focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations,
guidelines, declarations, etc.

[NB: In retrospect, this seems a bit problematic in several respects.  In
any event, it implies an entirely different beast from what we have, and a
level of commitment to more than talk that just isn¹t there. The way the IGF
is configured now, with no real institutional apparatus or defined
membership and just an annual conference, it¹s hard to see how it could
devise even recommendations, and how the effort to do so wouldn¹t become
WSIS PrepCom Redux and eat up the entire conference while blotting out
opportunities for dialogue.  (Meanwhile, the ITU is planning a World Telecom
Policy Forum on Internet issues in 2009 that will adopt recs based on a
rather different set of concepts and constituencies.)  This has been the
position of Nitin et al, the OECD governments, the I-cube (ICANN/ISOC/ICC),
etc.    Some developing country governments and I guess some of us here
(e.g. Parminder) strongly disagree and want the IGF doing recs anyway.  It
would be interesting to hear how that could actually work now, or whether
the proponents are arguing for some sort of broader institutionalization
that could make recs conceivable in principle (in practice being a different
and higher hurdle due to diverse stakeholder interests and power).  I guess
we¹ll have to address this in the workshop but I¹d propose to hold this
topic to the last 20 minutes or so or else it will eat up all the bandwidth
without getting anywhere and make it impossible to consider other aspects of
the mandate on which some consensus might be possible.]

39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:

a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a Feather,
working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.

[NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now even
the term, working group, is verboten.]

b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an
eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual
and collective institutional improvements;

c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet
governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability,
inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,² such as the WSIS
principles;

d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within
the ambit of any existing body;

e. identification of potential tensions between separately developed
mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among
them;

[NB: These all imply institutional capacity and consensus on looking at how
governance is actually conducted in various settings, both of which are
absent, related provisions in the Tunis Agenda notwithstanding. It might be
worth considering whether any such analysis/monitoring/best
practice-identifying is worth doing at the IGF level and how this might be
achieved absent institutional capacity, e.g. via dynamic coalitions etc.]

f. promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives,
where possible;

g. pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of
other bodies;

h. provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization,
identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting meaningful
developing country participation and capacity building;

i. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
governance processes;

j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on
the various Internet governance issues.

40. Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum should
be free and open to all interested individuals from all stakeholder groups.
Operations should be designed in such a way that physical attendance is not
strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries,
civil society organizations, individuals) are proactively supported.

[NB: One could argue that some elements of the above are advanced a bit in
the current configuration; is more needed?]

41. It is important that the forum has clear organization and
decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning and
effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also important that
the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical
results. A forum for discussion will not be particularly useful if it will
not be coupled with the ability to bring all stakeholders to agreement and
determine actual
changes.

[NB: Oh well...]

Anyway, that¹s just what we agreed on the list two years ago and argued for
in PrepComs etc., for information.  Clearly some of these points directly
parallel or amplify provisions in the WGIG Report and Tunis Agenda, while
others go beyond them.  In addition, the TA of course includes a number of
bits that were consistent with our thrust (e.g. facilitate discourse between
bodies dealing with different cross-cutting international public policies,
interface with appropriate inter-governmental organizations and other
institutions on matters under their purview) and others that were inserted
to mollify governments which we didn¹t propose, e.g. a bureau.

The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed
mandate.  In the event anyone would like to offer suggestions on points that
could be taken up in the workshop, TA 72-78 are below for referencing.

BD

-------

 72.    We ask the UN Secretary-General, in an open and inclusive process,
to convene, by the second quarter of 2006, a meeting of the new forum for
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue‹called the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF).The mandate of the Forum is to:

a)    Discuss public policy issues related to key elements of Internet
Governance in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security,
stability and development of the Internet;

b)    Facilitate discourse between bodies dealing with different
cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet and
discuss issues that do not fall within the scope of any existing body;

c)    Interface with appropriate inter-governmental organisations and other
institutions on matters under their purview;

d)    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;

e)    Advise all stakeholders in proposing ways and means to accelerate the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing world;

f)    Strengthen and enhance the engagement of stakeholders in existing
and/or future Internet Governance mechanisms, particularly those from
developing countries;

g)    Identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the relevant
bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations;

h)    Contribute to capacity-building for Internet Governance in developing
countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise;

i)    Promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS
principles in Internet Governance processes;

j)    Discuss, inter alia, issues relating to critical Internet resources;

k)    Help to find solutions to the issues arising from the use and misuse
of the Internet, of particular concern to everyday users;

l)    Publish its proceedings.

73.    The Internet Governance Forum, in its working and function, will be
multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent. To that end,
the proposed IGF could:

a)    Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special
emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this
process ­ governments, business entities, civil society and
inter-governmental organisations;

b)    Have a lightweight and decentralised structure that would be subject
to periodic review;

c)    Meet periodically, as required. IGF meetings, in principle, may be
held in parallel with major relevant UN conferences, inter alia, to use
logistical support.

74.    We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options
for the convening of the Forum, taking into consideration the proven
competencies of all stakeholders in Internet Governance and the need to
ensure their full involvement.

75.    The UN Secretary-General would report to UN Member States
periodically on the operation of the Forum.

76.    We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership in this regard.

77.    The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organisations, but would
involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be constituted
as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It would have no
involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.

78.    The UN Secretary-General should extend invitations to all
stakeholders and relevant parties to participate at the inaugural meeting of
the IGF, taking into consideration balanced geographical representation. The
UN Secretary-General should also:

a)    draw upon any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders,
including the proven expertise of ITU, as demonstrated during the WSIS
process; and 

b)    establish an effective and cost-efficient bureau to support the IGF,
ensuring multi-stakeholder participation.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/b39a6020/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/b39a6020/attachment.txt>

From nb at bollow.ch  Tue Oct 23 06:13:36 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:13:36 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Re: Identity systems and privacy (was Re: New IGF community site)
In-Reply-To: <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> (message from
	Stephane Bortzmeyer on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:52:11 +0000)
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch> <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <20071023101336.B4CDD2202DA@quill.bollow.ch>

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> An OpenID provider is not an *outside* third party since you choose
> it. Like an Internet access provider, it is a party you have to trust,
> at least partially.

What I'm opposing is the totally needless introduction of an
additional "party you have to trust" into the system, especially
in view of the fact that determining the trustworthiness of a
third-party OpenID provider is (if possible at all) much more
difficult that being your own OpenID provider.

> > "Being your own OpenID provider" is AFAIK not possible behind NAT.
> 
> Well, anyway, it is not realistic for most users, even with a public
> IP address. My point was not that Joe Average should become his own
> identity provider, but that many people can do it, so Joe Average will
> have a large choice of providers, probably with at least one with a
> privacy practice he likes.

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 Oct 23 06:21:26 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:21:26 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
In-Reply-To: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> (message from Veni
	Markovski on Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:57:19 -0400)
References: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>
Message-ID: <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch>

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> http://blog.veni.com/?p=342
> 
> Read carefully Commissioner Kroes statement.
> This seems far more important than a number of issues we are discussing here.

Alas Microsoft has essentially succeeded in pulling the Commissioner
over the table in the settlement negotiations, by getting him to
support Microsoft's strategy for essentially killing by means of
patents the emerging GPL-based business ecosystem which is Microsoft's
only serious threat of competition.

http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_tells_open_source_to_start_paying_MS_patent_tax

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Oct 23 07:53:42 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:53:42 -0200
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
In-Reply-To: <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg> <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <471DE0C6.5000709@rits.org.br>

In my view there would be another big threat to M$ in its own terrain -- 
if Apple were bold enough to distribute a generic Intel/AMD version of 
its powerful Leopard OSX for $100 (current price for the Mac version is 
$129, far cheaper than a Vista equivalent, although of course there is 
*no* Windows equivalent to match power, security and performance of 
OSX). Currently thousands of people are using a hacked version of OSX 
which works quite well.

--c.a.

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
> 
>> http://blog.veni.com/?p=342
>>
>> Read carefully Commissioner Kroes statement.
>> This seems far more important than a number of issues we are discussing here.
> 
> Alas Microsoft has essentially succeeded in pulling the Commissioner
> over the table in the settlement negotiations, by getting him to
> support Microsoft's strategy for essentially killing by means of
> patents the emerging GPL-based business ecosystem which is Microsoft's
> only serious threat of competition.
> 
> http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_tells_open_source_to_start_paying_MS_patent_tax
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lists at privaterra.info  Tue Oct 23 08:54:29 2007
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:54:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Perhaps the larger issue is that of Privacy policies related to IGF ..
In-Reply-To: <20071023101336.B4CDD2202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <689833.81090.qm@web50206.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <47187E30.405@Malcolm.id.au> <471B5BCF.8020800@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071021232619.GC13997@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071022071328.513482202DA@quill.bollow.ch> <20071022225211.GA9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <20071023101336.B4CDD2202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <89547FE5-BDEC-4F0A-BDB3-290DF9CB1D03@privaterra.info>

Perhaps the larger issue is that of Privacy policies and/or best  
practices related to the IGF itself...

There was an earlier thread about perhaps including an option in the  
registration where those attending can opt-in (or out) of having  
their - personal - information published online . Now there's we have  
an issue of an IGF related site that chooses to place user's data at  
risk without even consulting them.

If the IGF is about brining people together and developing best  
practices, then might I make the recommendation that CS and other  
stake-holders insist that all websites related to the IGF (be they  
official and/or unofficial) have 1. a clear privacy policy and 2.  
mechanisms for users to make the choice if indeed they want their  
information shared and/or traded with outside parties (ie. opt in).



regards,

Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.ca>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377



On 23-Oct-07, at 6:13 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:

> Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
>> An OpenID provider is not an *outside* third party since you choose
>> it. Like an Internet access provider, it is a party you have to  
>> trust,
>> at least partially.
>
> What I'm opposing is the totally needless introduction of an
> additional "party you have to trust" into the system, especially
> in view of the fact that determining the trustworthiness of a
> third-party OpenID provider is (if possible at all) much more
> difficult that being your own OpenID provider.
>
>>> "Being your own OpenID provider" is AFAIK not possible behind NAT.
>>
>> Well, anyway, it is not realistic for most users, even with a public
>> IP address. My point was not that Joe Average should become his own
>> identity provider, but that many people can do it, so Joe Average  
>> will
>> have a large choice of providers, probably with at least one with a
>> privacy practice he likes.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>
> -- 
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 avri at acm.org  Tue Oct 23 10:42:58 2007
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:42:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <526C7499-5DA9-4D97-A2AA-CACF5705F194@acm.org>


On 22 okt 2007, at 18.55, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>
>> Networks have a right to manage their bandwidth.
>
> This is a very vague statement. Is tearing down BitTorrent connections
> (what Comcast does) "managing bandwidth"?
>

It depends.  If what they are selling is best effort service of a  
specific bandwidth then they need to treat all traffic within that  
service pipe equally.

sure they have a right to do traffic shaping in terms of balancing  
the expected use of best effort against the premium QoS services they  
sell - and if they don't want to resorts to over provisioning as  
their primary means of bandwidth control (as so many still do) they  
do need to do some shaping.  The problem comes in when they will bar  
traffic on certain ports or introduce latency in VoIP or Skype  or  
when they decide which hosts they will give preferential or  
detrimental treatment within the best-effort service (basic Internet)  
they sell to the regular users.

The issue of net neutrality has long been confounded by mistaking it  
as a QoS issue.  And is now being further confounded by bringing in  
Traffic Shaping.  As I understand it, the primary issue would be  
about how traffic is treating within the best-effort service that is  
the service that most of us buy when we pay for our home service.

So yes, blocking Bittorrent traffic or introducing latency into VoIP  
on a best effort pipe is counter to net neutrality as I understand  
it.  And while it could be called managing bandwidth, it would be  
doing so as an obfuscation and at the expense of Net neutrality.

a.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Tue Oct 23 16:02:09 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:02:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategic Plan Draft is posted in 6 languages
References: <C3429F9D.2BF52%doug.brent@icann.org>
Message-ID: <AE7B4EA1-2925-4AEB-9EDB-7588D30910CC@psg.com>

fyi.

a step in the right direction, i think.
and yes, many steps yet to go.

a.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Doug Brent <doug.brent at icann.org>
> Date: måndag 22 okt 2007 21.42.37 EDT
> To: Doug Brent <doug.brent at icann.org>
> Subject: Wanted to ensure you saw the Strategic Plan Draft is now  
> posted
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm following up from my communication last week regarding possible
> consultation on ICANN's draft Strategic Plan. I wanted to make sure  
> you were
> aware that as of last Friday, the plan has now been posted in six  
> languages,
> and is ready for broad review and comment. You can see the  
> announcement at:
>
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct07.htm
>
> Thanks,
> Doug
> --
> Doug Brent
> Chief Operating Officer
> ICANN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/c9301248/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/c9301248/attachment.txt>

From dan at musicunbound.com  Tue Oct 23 17:37:12 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 14:37:12 -0700
Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategic Plan Draft is posted in 6
 languages
In-Reply-To: <AE7B4EA1-2925-4AEB-9EDB-7588D30910CC@psg.com>
References: <C3429F9D.2BF52%doug.brent@icann.org>
 <AE7B4EA1-2925-4AEB-9EDB-7588D30910CC@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p0623090bc3440a7dbb11@[10.0.1.2]>

Interesting, but as a relative newbie (still) I'm not sure I have a prior
benchmark with which to compare it.  Can you point to the steps in the
right direction that you see here?

My overall impression is that this is a nice-sounding vaguely-worded wish
list, but there seem to be no detailed benchmarks for measurable results
(though there are wishes for some).  That is, there are lots of activities
being described with goals of a very general nature, but no well-defined
standards for success or failure.  Just a lot of nonspecific "good
intentions" expressed as generalized adjectives that tend to obscure the
sorts of tangible details that become obstacles or the subject of
persistent disputes, and which make all the difference when it comes to
actual implementation.

Words like "predictable" or "effective" or "improve" or "appropriate" or
"necessary" or "efficient" or "encourage" or "support" or "clear" or
"capability" or "regular" or "engagement" or "adequate" or "focus" or
"robust" or "relevant" or "enhance" or "openness, transparency,
inclusiveness and accountability" or "cooperation" or "as needed" are all
completely open-ended and subjective when it comes to defining a tangible
standard of operation and implementation.

So, for example: "55.3. Measure and benchmark ICANN accountability and
transparency and implement best practice in accountability and
transparency."  Sounds great.  What specific standard will be used to
define "best practice" or "benchmark"?  Until that is defined, this
statement literally has no well-defined meaning in a policy sense.  It
sounds like a stump speech for a political candidate or a photo-op for some
diplomatic event, not a management policy position of a working
administrator.

You could boil down this whole document to a single statement of "we'll try
to do better" and the rest is just a list of target areas to aim for.
Beyond that there are no consequences for failure, because there is no
definition of failure in any of these specific areas.  No risk whatsoever,
no guarantees.

Hardly any institution succeeds at everything it tries to do.  The ones
that are honest about it will define specific well-defined goals (based on
the best info available at the time -- and they will explicitly acknowledge
where info is currently lacking, if so) and when they fail to meet any of
those goals they then review why (was the standard too ambitious due to
lack of information or expected resources, or was the implementation
tactically flawed or incompetently executed, etc.), and according to
overall priorities they decide whether to try again fixing what they've
identified that went wrong or abandon those goals and prioritize others
instead.

"Flying by the seat of one's pants" is not generally considered a "best
practice" in organizational management, so far as I know.  Is anyone's feet
being held to the fire?  If not, why not?  *That's* the essence of
"accountability"...

Dan

PS -- I understand the instinct to "underpromise and overdeliver" in tech
development.  This strategy does not work in policy venues.  There is no
"overdeliver" in policy.  It's a different beast altogether.



At 4:02 PM -0400 10/23/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>fyi.
>
>a step in the right direction, i think.
>
>and yes, many steps yet to go.
>
>a.
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>From: Doug Brent <<mailto:doug.brent at icann.org>doug.brent at icann.org>
>>Date: måndag 22 okt 2007 21.42.37 EDT
>>To: Doug Brent <<mailto:doug.brent at icann.org>doug.brent at icann.org>
>>Subject: Wanted to ensure you saw the Strategic Plan Draft is now posted
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm following up from my communication last week regarding possible
>>consultation on ICANN's draft Strategic Plan. I wanted to make sure you were
>>aware that as of last Friday, the plan has now been posted in six languages,
>>and is ready for broad review and comment. You can see the announcement at:
>>
>><http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct07.htm>http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19oct07.htm
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Doug
>>--
>>Doug Brent
>>Chief Operating Officer
>>ICANN
>>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From avri at psg.com  Tue Oct 23 18:02:18 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:02:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategic Plan Draft is posted in 6 languages
In-Reply-To: <p0623090bc3440a7dbb11@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <C3429F9D.2BF52%doug.brent@icann.org> <AE7B4EA1-2925-4AEB-9EDB-7588D30910CC@psg.com> <p0623090bc3440a7dbb11@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <C7929DB0-18A7-4600-857C-A541CE1753E9@psg.com>


On 23 okt 2007, at 17.37, Dan Krimm wrote:

>  Can you point to the steps in the
> right direction that you see here?


it isn't just in English?

a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/48319122/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071023/48319122/attachment.txt>

From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Oct 23 18:14:42 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:16:31PM -0400,
 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 39 lines which said:

> Is the diffserv protocol of the IETF, a violation of net neutrality?
> Is any use of QoS inherently bad?

The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used for a
lot of different things, some being bad. If its purpose is to reduce
my SIP bandwidth because my provider finds it endangers its selling of
traditional telephone services, yes, it is a violation of net
neutrality.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 23 18:39:46 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:39:46 -0700
Subject: [governance] ICANN Strategic Plan Draft is posted in 6
 languages
In-Reply-To: <C7929DB0-18A7-4600-857C-A541CE1753E9@psg.com>
References: <C3429F9D.2BF52%doug.brent@icann.org>
 <AE7B4EA1-2925-4AEB-9EDB-7588D30910CC@psg.com>
 <p0623090bc3440a7dbb11@[10.0.1.2]>
 <C7929DB0-18A7-4600-857C-A541CE1753E9@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06230911c34422f17639@[10.0.1.2]>

At 6:02 PM -0400 10/23/07, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 23 okt 2007, at 17.37, Dan Krimm wrote:
>
>> Can you point to the steps in the
>>
>>right direction that you see here?
>>
>
>
>it isn't just in English?


Ah, I see, yes, that's good that more people can read it for themselves in
their native (or other primary) languages, and if they are paying attention
to what they read, they may see that nothing here is well-defined in terms
of benchmarks or standards for success or failure.

I hope they will speak up when they discover this.  The more the merrier.

And, hmm, how again do they direct their comments so that those in charge
will pay attention to them?  I wonder if Kieren has help translating public
comments from all those languages so that ICANN's management and board will
see them, or at least some useful codification of them.

I see one-way broadcast slightly improved here.  Is there a back-channel
that works too, on this 2-way interactive Internet?  That depends of course
on the back-end processing (both technological and human-powered
organizational structures) after the Internet has done its part
transmitting data reliably from one edge node to another.

Dumb pipes, smart edges.  One can dream.

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 avri at psg.com  Tue Oct 23 18:43:18 2007
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:43:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com>


On 23 okt 2007, at 18.14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:16:31PM -0400,
>  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote
>  a message of 39 lines which said:
>
>> Is the diffserv protocol of the IETF, a violation of net neutrality?
>> Is any use of QoS inherently bad?
>
> The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used for a
> lot of different things, some being bad. If its purpose is to reduce
> my SIP bandwidth because my provider finds it endangers its selling of
> traditional telephone services, yes, it is a violation of net
> neutrality.
>


i agree.  especially because I expect you are buying best-effort  
service, which has a well known meaning and expectation.

what happens i wonder if they start to sell a cheaper level of  
service that includes the right for them to limit traffic they  
consider detrimental to the business model (though of course it would  
be put in a much smoother form of marketese).  would this be ok? or  
would it be an infringement of some internet principle?

it is a question i have wavered on:

- sometimes i think they have a right to sell me anything and if i am  
stupid  enough to buy, my loss.

- sometime i think that they don't have a right to sell me poison  
just because i am too poor to buy the real Internet.

a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Oct 23 19:10:10 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:10:10 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20071023231010.GA17951@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:43:18PM -0400,
 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote 
 a message of 44 lines which said:

> what happens i wonder if they start to sell a cheaper level of
> service that includes the right for them to limit traffic they
> consider detrimental to the business model

In the real Comcast case, they did not even confirm the trick against
BitTorrent, although it widely reported, with detailed
observations. If an access provider were honest about these policies,
it would already be a step in the right direction.

> - sometimes i think they have a right to sell me anything and if i
> am stupid enough to buy, my loss.

As long as they document it, following RFC 4084.

4084 Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity. J. Klensin. May
     2005. (Format: TXT=24522 bytes) (Also BCP0104) (Status: BEST CURRENT
     PRACTICE)
http://www.ietf.org/4084.txt

AFAIK, not one of the access providers which sell some form of
"limited Internet" abide by the RFC 4084. Transparency should not only
be for ICANN, but also for the access providers.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Oct 23 19:12:32 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:12:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071023231010.GA17951@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com> <20071023231010.GA17951@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <20071023231232.GA18239@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>

On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:10:10PM +0000,
 Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

> http://www.ietf.org/4084.txt

Sorry, it should be http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4084.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 karl at cavebear.com  Tue Oct 23 21:34:29 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:34:29 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <471EA125.5070406@cavebear.com>

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:16:31PM -0400,
>  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote 

>> Is the diffserv protocol of the IETF, a violation of net neutrality?
>> Is any use of QoS inherently bad?
> 
> The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used for a
> lot of different things, some being bad.

I agree.

No matter how the news hypes the latest fattest network pipe, there will 
always be points of congestion - most frequently at places where those 
pipes converge into routers and on the local lines to people's homes.

To my mind the question is not of pure unadorned "neutrality" but rather 
a question of who has the ability to control the knobs and levers that 
define what traffic gets priority and which traffic is left to best 
effort (or worse.)

The attempts by the US telcos are an attempt to take that control out of 
the hands of network users (except in the most gross sense of paying 
more money or switching providers) and use that control to promote the 
telcos' products over those of competitors.

I, personally, am not adverse to differential pricing by the providers, 
as long as it is done to manage resources without bias for or against 
any particular product.  I realize that in the telecom space that this 
has historically been a hard thing to do - the telco's are just too 
imaginative, well financed, and persistent and the regulators too 
stodgy.  But I have hope that perhaps we might do better.

(By way of disclosure, I build a device that tries to put some of that 
control back into the hands of users - http://www.ispeedbump.com/ )

Now, what comcast did was apparently to forge TCP Reset packets using 
the IP addresses and TCP connection sequence information obtained by 
spying upon the traffic between the two ends of the TCP connection.

To my mind that is simply overt fraud, the intentional usurpation of 
another's fundamental internet identity - the IP address they are using. 
  It is no different than email forged with my name as the sender.

I've been stressing that in these internet governance debates that we 
are galloping far to quickly towards specific problems and not spending 
enough time formulating guiding principles.

Well, one such principle ought to be that absent a compelling reason the 
internet should not be a home for those who use it under an identity, 
whether it be an IP address or domain name or email address, that they 
know is being used by another who has a viable color of right to use 
that identity.

		--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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed Oct 24 04:21:14 2007
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:21:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] Call for dialogue: Regulatory frameworks for improving access / Foro  
 de =?ISO-8859-1?Q?discusi=F3n?=: ma rcos regulatorios para mejorar el  
 acceso
Message-ID: <20071024082113.5B1E6273784@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear friends

Below is some information about one of the 
workshops APC is leading in the IGF, along with 
LIRNE.NET and UNDP - on Regulatory frameworks for improving access

We're keen to get comments from as many of our 
colleagues as possible to feed into a dialogue in 
preparation for the workshop, and which may form key messages on the issue..

Spanish version follows the english..

many thanks
karen

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Call for dialogue: Regulatory frameworks for improving access
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5252920

"LIRNE.NET and APC invite internet and telecom 
practitioners, ICT policy and regulation experts, 
and other stakeholders to submit short (200-500 
words) statements on what they identify as the 
key issues and important factors currently facing 
regulators concerned with access to infrastructure. "

====

What key actions could telecom and ICT regulators 
undertake to promote access to infrastructure at 
local, national and regional levels? Send 
dialogue comment for posting to dialogue at regulateonline.org

“Regulatory Frameworks for Improving Access” ­ 
Workshop presented by APC, IDRC, and LIRNE.NET

This dialogue is being undertaken in preparation 
for the “Regulatory Frameworks for Improving 
Access” workshop co-hosted by the Canadian 
International Development Research Centre (IDRC), 
the Learning Initiatives on Reforms for Network 
Economies (LIRNE.NET), and the Association for 
Progressive Communications (APC), at this year’s 
IGF. The workshop will explore the key regulatory 
issues and imperatives in promoting equitable 
deployment and affordable access to internet 
(communications) infrastructure at local, national, regional and global levels.

Background

Regulation is how policies are put into practice. 
However, experience has shown that there is not 
necessarily a trouble-free transition from the 
conceptual to the real world. For telecom (and 
other sectors) despite expectations of market 
solutions to improve infrastructure development 
and deployment, there are still substantial 
access gaps beyond the reach of the market, especially in rural areas.

LIRNE.NET and APC invite internet and telecom 
practitioners, ICT policy and regulation experts, 
and other stakeholders to submit short (200-500 
words) statements on what they identify as the 
key issues and important factors currently facing 
regulators concerned with access to 
infrastructure. Statements can focus on local, 
national or regional access and can also 
highlight solutions that have been already 
implemented to resolve existing issues and 
challenges. Comments which address the following are particularly welcomed:

1. Whose jurisdiction? The role of regulation in 
addressing the international gap - international 
backbone infrastructure deployment and interconnection.
2. Issues and/or challenges in regulating 
regional (cross-national) communications infrastructure.
3. Trade-off or complementary objectives? 
Regulating for infrastructure investment and/or 
regulating for equitable access.
4. Access at the local level ­ definition of 
universal access and mechanisms for attainment.

Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a medium for 
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue, was set up in 
2006 as a direct response to the deliberations of 
the World Summit of the Information Society 
(WSIS). The forum was created to (amongst other 
things) discuss public policy issues related to 
key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, 
stability and development of the Internet. The 
second meeting of the IGF will be held in Rio de 
Janeiro, Brazil from 12 - 15 November 2007.

Association for Progressive Communications
http://www.apc.org

LIRNE.NET
http://www.lirne.net

IDRC
http://www.idrc.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foro de discusión: marcos regulatorios para mejorar el acceso
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.apc.org/espanol/news/index.shtml?x=5253264

¿Cuáles son los factores clave que influyen en la 
regulación y acceso a la infraestructura en lo 
local, nacional y regional? Invitamos a enviar 
comentarios (de 200 a 500 palabras) a: dialogue at regulateonline.org

Antecedentes

La regulación está relacionada con cómo las 
políticas son puestas en práctica. Sin embargo, 
la experiencia demuestra que la transición del 
mundo conceptual al mundo de los hechos no está 
libre de conflictos. En telecomunicaciones (como 
otros sectores recientemente privatizados), pese 
a las expectativas de que las soluciones de 
mercado mejorarían el desarrollo y despliegue de 
infraestructura, continúan existiendo brechas de 
acceso sustanciales más allá del alcance del 
mercado, especialmente en las áreas rurales.

LIRNE.NET y APC invitan a profesionales de 
internet y telecomunicaciones, expertos en 
políticas de TIC y regulación y otros actores a 
enviar un informe corto (200-500 palabras) sobre 
lo que ellos identifiquen como las cuestiones 
claves y los factores importantes que actualmente 
influyen en la regulación y el acceso a la 
infraestructura de TIC y de telecomunicaciones. 
Los informes pueden centrarse tanto en el acceso 
local, nacional o regional como también destacar 
soluciones que hayan sido implementadas con para 
resolver problemáticas y desafíos existentes. 
Comentarios que aborden las siguientes cuestiones 
son particularmente bienvenidos:

1. ¿Bajo la jurisdicción de quién? El rol de la 
regulación en el abordaje de la brecha 
internacional: despliegue de infraestructura 
básica internacional e interconexión.
2. Temas o desafíos en regulación de 
infraestructura de comunicaciones regional (a través de distintos países).
3. ¿Beneficios u objetivos complementarios? La 
regulación para la inversión en infraestructura o 
la regulación para un acceso equitativo.
4. Acceso a nivel local: definición de acceso 
universal y mecanismos para alcanzar los resultados propuestos.

Asociación APC ­ IDRC ­ LIRNE.NET

El Centro Internacional de Investigaciones para 
el Desarrollo (IDRC) de Canadá, la organización 
Learning Initiatives on Reforms for Network 
Economies (LIRNE.NET) y la Asociación para el 
Progreso de las Comunicaciones estarán 
presentando un taller en el Foro de gobernanza de 
internet de este año. El taller, titulado “Marcos 
regulatorios para optimizar el acceso” explorará 
las cuestiones claves en regulación y los 
imperativos en promover el despliegue equitativo 
y el acceso asequible a la infraestructura de 
Internet (comunicaciones) a nivel local, nacional, regional y global.

Foro de gobernanza de internet

El Foro de gobernanza de internet, un espacio 
para el diálogo sobre políticas públicas entre 
diferentes actores, fue establecido en 2006 como 
una respuesta directa a las deliberaciones de la 
Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información 
(CMSI). El foro fue creado (entre otras cosas) 
para “discutir cuestiones de políticas publicas 
relacionadas a elementos claves de la gobernanza 
de internet a fin de promover la sustentabilidad, 
fortaleza, seguridad, estabilidad y desarrollo de 
internet. La segunda reunión del foro tendrá 
lugar en Río de Janeiro, Brasil del 12 al 15 de noviembre de 2007.

Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones
http://www.apc.org

LIRNE.NET
http://www.lirne.net

IDRC
http://www.idrc.org


=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC 
community - people and        institutions who 
are or have been involved in collaboration with 
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which 
all people have easy, equal and affordable access 
to the creative potential of information and 
communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071024/b0e995e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071024/b0e995e5/attachment.txt>

From vb at bertola.eu  Wed Oct 24 06:21:59 2007
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:21:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <471EA125.5070406@cavebear.com>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <471EA125.5070406@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <471F1CC7.2010706@bertola.eu>

Karl Auerbach ha scritto:
> I've been stressing that in these internet governance debates that we 
> are galloping far to quickly towards specific problems and not spending 
> enough time formulating guiding principles.

It's nice to hear so - the idea of the "bill of rights" coalition is 
exactly that of promoting a discussion on principles and on how to 
formalize and enforce them. One of the points that emerged from the 
discussions is that, while the main problem with human rights on the 
Internet is how to enforce them, there is an additional set of 
principles (starting from network neutrality) that are new and still 
need to be agreed and formalized. Now, the issue is how, where, by whom 
etc :)
-- 
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 ca at rits.org.br  Wed Oct 24 08:02:12 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 10:02:12 -0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <F4677893-437F-46EA-B5FF-26BA31B9C1E6@psg.com>
Message-ID: <471F3444.5060002@rits.org.br>

Avri,

Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> On 23 okt 2007, at 18.14, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 07:16:31PM -0400,
>>  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote
>>  a message of 39 lines which said:
>>
>>> Is the diffserv protocol of the IETF, a violation of net neutrality?
>>> Is any use of QoS inherently bad?
>>
>> The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used for a
>> lot of different things, some being bad. If its purpose is to reduce
>> my SIP bandwidth because my provider finds it endangers its selling of
>> traditional telephone services, yes, it is a violation of net
>> neutrality.
>>
> 
> 
> i agree.  especially because I expect you are buying best-effort 
> service, which has a well known meaning and expectation.
> 
> what happens i wonder if they start to sell a cheaper level of service 
> that includes the right for them to limit traffic they consider 
> detrimental to the business model (though of course it would be put in a 
> much smoother form of marketese).  would this be ok? or would it be an 
> infringement of some internet principle?
> 
> it is a question i have wavered on:
> 
> - sometimes i think they have a right to sell me anything and if i am 
> stupid  enough to buy, my loss.

Either stupid or you are a "trivial" user who just uses canonic Web and 
email ports... and in this case will never notice most of the rest might 
be under oversight of a packet sniffer/traffic shaper.

> 
> - sometime i think that they don't have a right to sell me poison just 
> because i am too poor to buy the real Internet.
> 

Yes! Although they do... ;)

bs

--c.a.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From veni at veni.com  Wed Oct 24 09:52:36 2007
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 09:52:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
In-Reply-To: <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>
	 <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <2aa69fe40710240652m69b1f765q7b1c25de61627b08@mail.gmail.com>

Norbert,
There's something strange.
Everyone considers this a victory also for the free and open source community.
When I put the subject line, I also meant that this is changing the
way important things are happening around the (post)WSIS environment.
Only four years ago Microsoft was tryin to buy good press coverage.
Today they had to pay more than half a billion Euro to the EU and to
comply with the court decision. With regards to affordability of
internet access that's quite an important step. Because regardless of
what some commercial registrants are trying to bring to the attention
of the IGF, the important question is whether people can have internet
access, not whether they can have a domain name or a real IP address,
or a class C, etc.

Veni


On 10/23/07, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
>
> > http://blog.veni.com/?p=342
> >
> > Read carefully Commissioner Kroes statement.
> > This seems far more important than a number of issues we are discussing
> here.
>
> Alas Microsoft has essentially succeeded in pulling the Commissioner
> over the table in the settlement negotiations, by getting him to
> support Microsoft's strategy for essentially killing by means of
> patents the emerging GPL-based business ecosystem which is Microsoft's
> only serious threat of competition.
>
> http://press.ffii.org/Press_releases/EU_tells_open_source_to_start_paying_MS_patent_tax
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>
> --
> Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Oct 24 10:51:37 2007
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:51:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <C3437E74.E158%drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <C3437E74.E158%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <471F5BF9.2070309@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

William Drake schrieb:
> http://www.net-gov.org/files/co55.pdf, 
Thanks for reminding us of these old, but very good IGC documents. :-)

> /38. The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments
> like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances
> when the parties all agree that such instruments are needed, there could
> be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. Normally, the forum
> should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as
> recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc.
> /
> [NB: In retrospect, this seems a bit problematic in several respects.
> In any event, it implies an entirely different beast from what we have,
> and a level of commitment to more than talk that just isn’t there. 
That is not there for many (maybe the majority of) participants, to be
precise.

> it’s hard to see how
> it could devise even recommendations, 
Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of
the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be
"adopted" by the final plenary.

> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:
> 
> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
> /
> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now
> even the term, working group, is verboten.]
But we have the dynamic coalitions.

> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly
> within the ambit of any existing body;
We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned" on
the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

> j. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
> documents on the various Internet governance issues.
See above.

> 40. Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum
> should be free and open to all interested individuals from all
> stakeholder groups. Operations should be designed in such a way that
> physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged
> stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations,
> individuals) are proactively supported.
> /
> [NB: One could argue that some elements of the above are advanced a bit
> in the current configuration; is more needed?]
We certainly have "free and open participation" once people can make it to
the IGF meetings.
I would say that "physical attendance" is still needed if people want to
make a difference. Although the coalitions have been doing most of their
work between the meetings online.
What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on
travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

> /41. It is important that the forum has clear organization and
> decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning and
> effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also important
> that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce
> practical results. A forum for discussion will not be particularly
> useful if it will not be coupled with the ability to bring all
> stakeholders to agreement and determine actual
> changes.
> /
> [NB: Oh well...]
Yeah, good to remind us of our ambitious goals back then, as humans tend
to get used to anything.

> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed
> mandate.
It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to
show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a
lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.
Bottom line message then would be: "Folks, we need to at least fully
fullfill the TA mandate!"

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 nb at bollow.ch  Wed Oct 24 11:03:09 2007
From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:03:09 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
In-Reply-To: <2aa69fe40710240652m69b1f765q7b1c25de61627b08@mail.gmail.com>
	(veni@veni.com)
References: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>
	 <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch> <2aa69fe40710240652m69b1f765q7b1c25de61627b08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071024150310.0252A22024E@quill.bollow.ch>

Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:

> Everyone considers this a victory also for the free and open source
> community.

IMO anyone who considers this settlement to be "a victory" for the
free and open source community is severely mistaken.

At issue was the question whether Microsoft may continue trying to
non-"Microsoft Windows" computers including in particular GNU/Linux
based computers from working together with "Microsoft Windows"
computers in workgroup environments for purposes like sharing a
printer, shared document storage etc.

In principle, the law is clear that such an abuse of a dominant
market position is illegal.

After much foot-dragging Microsoft has now finally agreed to stop
trying to implement this illegal strategy by means of keeping the
relevant protocol specifications secret (getting them to agree to
that might have been a significant victory if it had happened
before the protocols in questions were successfully reverse-
enginieered), BUT in those settlement negotiations they got the
Commissioner to implicitly agree to tolerating that Microsoft is
now trying to implement their illegal strategy by means of patents.

> When I put the subject line, I also meant that this is changing the
> way important things are happening around the (post)WSIS environment.
> Only four years ago Microsoft was tryin to buy good press coverage.
> Today they had to pay more than half a billion Euro to the EU and to
> comply with the court decision. With regards to affordability of
> internet access that's quite an important step.

What matters with regard to the affordability of internet access is
whether or not Microsoft will succeed in killing the ability of
GNU/Linux to seriously compete.

Getting the Commissioner to agree that Microsoft may insist on
licensing relevant patents in ways which are fundamentally
incompatible with the whole socioeconomic system which forms the
basis of the free and open source community, that was certainly
a major victory for Microsoft.

:-(

Greetings,
Norbert.


-- 
Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch>                      http://Norbert.ch
President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG    http://SIUG.ch
Working on establishing a non-corrupt and
truly /open/ international standards organization  http://OpenISO.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Oct 24 12:14:31 2007
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:14:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
Message-ID: <s71f374f.057@gwia203.syr.edu>

Hi,

On that note of transparency (or lack thereof) from Internet providers
in the US and elsewhere, I agree consumers/users should demand more.  

Bill Lehr of MIT and I wrote a paper in Info maybe 6 years ago called
'Show me the Money: Towards Consumer Service Level Agreement Markets;'
where we erroneously predicted consumers would wise up long ago and
demand accurate information on how their packets are treated.

But fact is the providers say 'actual speeds may vary' in their fine
print and if one isn't willing/able to pay business prices, that's all
you get.  

On other hand, this has little to do with 'net neutrality' per se, is
really an issue of 'truth in advertising.'   In my opinion.

Maybe a call for transparency as Karl suggests could be a general
principle that
could even be part, of, oh I don't know, an Internet governance
framework? ; )

All opposing transparency raise your hand? See, the ayes have it.

Lee
Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> bortzmeyer at internatif.org 10/23/07 7:10 PM >>>
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 06:43:18PM -0400,
 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote 
 a message of 44 lines which said:

> what happens i wonder if they start to sell a cheaper level of
> service that includes the right for them to limit traffic they
> consider detrimental to the business model

In the real Comcast case, they did not even confirm the trick against
BitTorrent, although it widely reported, with detailed
observations. If an access provider were honest about these policies,
it would already be a step in the right direction.

> - sometimes i think they have a right to sell me anything and if i
> am stupid enough to buy, my loss.

As long as they document it, following RFC 4084.

4084 Terminology for Describing Internet Connectivity. J. Klensin. May
     2005. (Format: TXT=24522 bytes) (Also BCP0104) (Status: BEST
CURRENT
     PRACTICE)
http://www.ietf.org/4084.txt

AFAIK, not one of the access providers which sell some form of
"limited Internet" abide by the RFC 4084. Transparency should not only
be for ICANN, but also for the access providers.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Oct 24 12:54:48 2007
From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:54:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] something to think about for Rio
In-Reply-To: <20071024150310.0252A22024E@quill.bollow.ch>
References: <20071022215712.37D952BC003@mxr.isoc.bg>	 <20071023102126.7E3B82202DA@quill.bollow.ch> <2aa69fe40710240652m69b1f765q7b1c25de61627b08@mail.gmail.com> <20071024150310.0252A22024E@quill.bollow.ch>
Message-ID: <471F78D8.9080107@knowprose.com>

I've been following this for a bit. Microsoft has to maintain
interoperability for many reasons. The reasons outlined by Norbert are
true to the future of communications - and, therefore, for humanity as a
whole (if humanity ever figures out how to communicate properly).

There is another reason: Microsoft needs interoperability with GNU/Linux
so that it stays a market force. 11 years ago, GNU/Linux began
negotiating marketshare from a position of weakness.Today, that position
of weakness exists only in the minds of people who mistake advertising
for information. GNU/Linux licenses cannot be counted as Microsoft
licenses are; one does not have to register each machine when installing
GNU/Linux or any other distribution of Linux.

Where this connects to what Norbert has written: A position of weakness
should not be artificially recreated by policy for *any* operating
system, just as a position of weakness should not be artificially
created for any race, culture, creed or gender (and everything in
between) of humanity.

Principle should guide policy, and that policy should be consistent with
the principle across all topics.

Norbert Bollow wrote:
> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Everyone considers this a victory also for the free and open source
>> community.
>>     
>
> IMO anyone who considers this settlement to be "a victory" for the
> free and open source community is severely mistaken.
>
> At issue was the question whether Microsoft may continue trying to
> non-"Microsoft Windows" computers including in particular GNU/Linux
> based computers from working together with "Microsoft Windows"
> computers in workgroup environments for purposes like sharing a
> printer, shared document storage etc.
>
> In principle, the law is clear that such an abuse of a dominant
> market position is illegal.
>
> After much foot-dragging Microsoft has now finally agreed to stop
> trying to implement this illegal strategy by means of keeping the
> relevant protocol specifications secret (getting them to agree to
> that might have been a significant victory if it had happened
> before the protocols in questions were successfully reverse-
> enginieered), BUT in those settlement negotiations they got the
> Commissioner to implicitly agree to tolerating that Microsoft is
> now trying to implement their illegal strategy by means of patents.
>
>   
>> When I put the subject line, I also meant that this is changing the
>> way important things are happening around the (post)WSIS environment.
>> Only four years ago Microsoft was tryin to buy good press coverage.
>> Today they had to pay more than half a billion Euro to the EU and to
>> comply with the court decision. With regards to affordability of
>> internet access that's quite an important step.
>>     
>
> What matters with regard to the affordability of internet access is
> whether or not Microsoft will succeed in killing the ability of
> GNU/Linux to seriously compete.
>
> Getting the Commissioner to agree that Microsoft may insist on
> licensing relevant patents in ways which are fundamentally
> incompatible with the whole socioeconomic system which forms the
> basis of the free and open source community, that was certainly
> a major victory for Microsoft.
>
> :-(
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert.
>
>
>   


-- 
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 drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Oct 24 15:26:22 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:26:22 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <471F5BF9.2070309@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <C34568FE.E233%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Hi Ralf,

Thanks for the input on the agenda of the IGC workshop.

On 10/24/07 4:51 PM, "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

>> it¹s hard to see how
>> it could devise even recommendations,
> Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of
> the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be
> "adopted" by the final plenary.

We could take up this, and other alternative ideas...
 
>> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:
>> 
>> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for
>> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a
>> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
>> /
>> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now
>> even the term, working group, is verboten.]
> But we have the dynamic coalitions.

But they're free floating and don't have the sort of institutionalized
relationship to the IGF that sub-bodies of other IG collaborations have in
terms of recognition and ability to input, per the long-ago recs of the
MMWG.  Should we address that?
 
>> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture,
>> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly
>> within the ambit of any existing body;
> We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned" on
> the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

Right.  But per the above, if you folks come up with some ideas, what then
happens to them?
 
> What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on
> travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

There's whatever Canada's doing, and someone at the ITU told me today that
they are offering unspecified support to "18 people from almost 15
developing countries, and 4 continents."  No reply yet as to whether any are
nongovernmental.

>> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed
>> mandate.
> It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to
> show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a
> lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.

Hence my reply to Adam.

Any other topical ideas?

Cheers,

BD 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From riazt at iafrica.com  Sat Oct 20 17:19:35 2007
From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:19:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies
Message-ID: <471A70E7.3060405@iafrica.com>

Senate Deal on Immunity for Phone Companies
     By Eric Lichtblau
     The New York Times

     Thursday 18 October 2007

     Washington - Leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee reached a 
tentative agreement on Wednesday with the Bush administration that would 
give telephone carriers legal immunity for any role they played in the 
National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program approved by 
President Bush after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a Congressional 
official said Wednesday.

     Senators this week began reviewing classified documents related to 
the participation of the telephone carriers in the security agency 
program and came away from that early review convinced that the 
companies had "acted in good faith" in cooperating with what they 
believed was a legal and presidentially authorized program and that they 
should not be punished through civil litigation for their roles, the 
official said.

     As part of legislation on the security agency's wiretapping 
authorities, the White House has been pushing hard for weeks to get 
immunity for the telecommunications companies in discussions with 
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Democratic chairman 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Senator Christopher S. Bond of 
Missouri, the ranking Republican. A tentative deal was first reported by 
The Washington Post.

     The Intelligence Committee will begin reviewing the legislation at 
a closed session on Thursday.

     The agreement between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 
Bush administration would also include a greater role for the secret 
intelligence court in overseeing and approving methods of wiretapping 
used by the security agency, the official said.

     But it is not clear whether this and other toughened civil 
liberties safeguards included in the agreement will go far enough to 
mollify senators on the Senator Judiciary Committee, who will also 
review the plan once the intelligence panel finishes its work.

     Word of the deal came hours after House Republicans used a 
parliamentary maneuver to scuttle a vote on a measure that would have 
imposed new restrictions on the security agency's eavesdropping powers.

     At the start of the day, Democrats were confident that the measure 
would gain approval in the House despite a veto threat from President 
Bush. But after an afternoon of partisan sniping, Democratic leaders put 
off that vote because of a competing measure from Republicans that on 
its face asked lawmakers to declare where they stood on stopping Osama 
bin Laden from attacking the United States again.

     The Republican measure declared that nothing in the broader bill 
should be construed as prohibiting intelligence officials from 
conducting the surveillance needed to prevent Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda 
"from attacking the United States." Had it passed, it threatened to 
derail the Democratic measure altogether.

     Democrats denounced the Republicans' poison pill on Mr. bin Laden 
as a cynical political ploy and "a cheap shot." But Democratic leaders 
realized that they were at risk of losing the votes of a contingent of 
more moderate Democrats who did not want to be left vulnerable for 
voting against a resolution to stop Al Qaeda, officials said. So the 
leaders pulled the measure, promising to take it up again next week once 
they could solidify support.

     The Republican maneuver "would have killed the bill, and we 
couldn't risk that," said a senior Democratic aide, who spoke on 
condition of anonymity to discuss internal leadership deliberations. "We 
thought we'd be able to defeat it, but it became clear that we couldn't."

     The episode revealed, once again, fault lines within the Democratic 
Party over how to tackle national security questions without appearing 
"soft" on terrorism in the face of Republican criticism.

     Indeed, Republican leaders immediately praised their ability to 
block the N.S.A. measure as a sign of the Democrats' weakness on that 
issue. Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi "underestimated the intelligence of the American 
people and the bipartisan majority in the Congress to understand what 
matters most: preventing another terrorist attack."

     Democrats, clearly thrown on the defensive, countered that 
Republicans were the ones playing politics with national security.

     "Once again, House Republicans have chosen to engage in politics 
rather than substantively address the challenges that face the American 
people," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the House 
Democratic leader. "Once again, they have offered an amendment that, if 
passed, would have substantially delayed this important legislation 
which is designed to protect the American people by proposing language 
already provided in the bill."

     The Democratic measure would have sought to restore some of the 
restrictions on the security agency's wiretapping powers that had been 
loosened under a temporary measure approved by Congress just before its 
August recess. The new bill would give the secret foreign intelligence 
court a greater oversight role in the agency's interception of 
foreign-based communications into the United States, and it would 
provide for more reporting and accountability when the communications of 
Americans were involved.

     The Bush administration has lobbied hard against the measure. One 
of its chief complaints is that the House bill would not provide 
immunity for telephone carriers as the Senate measure does.

     A day after threatening to veto the House measure, Mr. Bush kept up 
the political pressure Wednesday in the hours before the bill was to 
come up for a vote. He said at a news conference that the Democratic 
plan would weaken national security, and he urged Congress instead to 
make permanent the measure it passed in August, which broadened the 
security agency's authority to wiretap terrorism suspects without court 
oversight. That measure expires in February.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101807D.shtml
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 25 09:11:13 2007
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:11:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
References: <LYRIS-66272-12187-2007.10.19-18.50.55--correia.rui#gmail.com@newsletter.truthout.org> <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org]
> The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used for a
> lot of different things, some being bad. If its purpose is to reduce
> my SIP bandwidth because my provider finds it endangers its selling of
> traditional telephone services, yes, it is a violation of net
> neutrality.

Right, so the "crime" is anticompetitive behavior, not QoS or bandwidth management per se. The problem with a lot of the looser NN talk is that it confuses a desirable policy outcome (open, neutral access) with a fixed technical mechanism for handling packets. We may want to tell carriers they cannot engage in activities that block or degrade independent digital goods and service providers. We do not want to tell them that they must always handle all packets in exactly the same way. 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.9/1090 - Release Date: 10/24/2007 8:48 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  Thu Oct 25 13:19:56 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:19:56 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com> <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br>

Milton, they should not "handle" packets. The carriers should just let
them pass, like cars in a highway... :)

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, "Stephane Bortzmeyer"
<bortzmeyer at internatif.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:11:13 -0400
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org]
> > The diffserv protocol is a _tool_. As most tools, it can be used
> for a
> > lot of different things, some being bad. If its purpose is to
> reduce
> > my SIP bandwidth because my provider finds it endangers its selling
> of
> > traditional telephone services, yes, it is a violation of net
> > neutrality.
> 
> Right, so the "crime" is anticompetitive behavior, not QoS or
> bandwidth management per se. The problem with a lot of the looser NN
> talk is that it confuses a desirable policy outcome (open, neutral
> access) with a fixed technical mechanism for handling packets. We may
> want to tell carriers they cannot engage in activities that block or
> degrade independent digital goods and service providers. We do not
> want to tell them that they must always handle all packets in exactly
> the same way. 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.9/1090 - Release Date:
> 10/24/2007 8:48 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu  Thu Oct 25 13:44:13 2007
From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:44:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] Bulgarian all-Cyrillic IDN - Re: Russia plans to create
 independent web / internet
In-Reply-To: <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
 <a06240833c33565cc1eb5@[192.168.0.101]>
 <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com>
 <a06240837c33673ebf4b0@[192.168.0.101]>
 <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg>
Message-ID: <a062408dec34681dcb27a@[192.168.0.101]>

Regarding the below - just posted, here quoting excerpts from novinite.com:

"Bulgaria's Uninet Starts Selling Domains in Cyrillic"

"Internet users in Bulgaria can now experiment with their name in their language on their Internet after the launch of the sale of domain names in Cyrillic.
 ...
"The first domains on sale will be the .bg, .info and .ime zones, written in Bulgarian. The users can buy domains in these zones by the members and the registrars of Uninet. Every Internet provider can become a registrar of Uninet on several simple conditions.

"The first Internet provider, which became a registrar of domains written in Bulgarian alphabet in Cyrillic, is BG8. ..."

http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=86755

notices in Bulgarian:

http://technews.bg/info.php?id=5739
http://4press.idg.bg/?call=USE~press;&action=item&id=1715

Yet another shoe dropping, into the new architecture.

David

At 5:42 PM -0400 10/13/07, Veni Markovski wrote:
>... multilingual domains in Russian, Ukranian, Bulgarian ... languages. I am a Bulgarian, chairman of the Internet Society in the country, and somehow have not seen something like that developed, launched, or enacted.
>
>...
>
>Veni Markovski
>http://www.veni.com

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From dan at musicunbound.com  Thu Oct 25 14:11:47 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:11:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br>
References: <ec8caada0710192230o3194b028wb04a2f2bc0bc98cf@mail.gmail.com>
 <471CDE89.8000700@rits.org.br>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <p0623092ec3468be5d45e@[10.0.1.2]>

At 2:19 PM -0300 10/25/07, carlos a. afonso wrote:
>Milton, they should not "handle" packets. The carriers should just let
>them pass, like cars in a highway... :)


Unfortunately that metaphor doesn't work, however attractive it may be.

Once a road is built, the builder requires no energy to keep traffic moving
on it (aside from occasional maintenance when the road cracks).  On the
Internet, the "pipe builders" are also "pipe operators" and must invest
much energy and resources in keeping it running.

A road is a product.  Internet data transfer is a service.

Something to keep in mind.

Yes, ISPs should "handle" packets in the most unintrusive manner feasible.
But they do indeed have to "handle" them, or otherwise those packets will
come to a halt, because they are not self-powered.  The cost of data
distribution on the net is "near zero" but not absolute zero.

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 ca at rits.org.br  Thu Oct 25 15:04:54 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:04:54 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <p0623092ec3468be5d45e@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br> <p0623092ec3468be5d45e@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200710251604.AA04540668@rits.org.br>

A road is also a service, and the packets have drivers - the ones who
originated them and are (our should be) the sole responsible for them,
and "drive" (through instructions embedded in the packets and unless a
sniffer/shaper steers them) them to their destination. The metaphor is
valid, since road maintenance can be calculated over time on a regular
basis (thus is calculated the traffic toll agreement between road
operators and the state).

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:11:47 -0700
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

> At 2:19 PM -0300 10/25/07, carlos a. afonso wrote:
> >Milton, they should not "handle" packets. The carriers should just
> let
> >them pass, like cars in a highway... :)
> 
> 
> Unfortunately that metaphor doesn't work, however attractive it may
> be.
> 
> Once a road is built, the builder requires no energy to keep traffic
> moving
> on it (aside from occasional maintenance when the road cracks).  On
> the
> Internet, the "pipe builders" are also "pipe operators" and must
> invest
> much energy and resources in keeping it running.
> 
> A road is a product.  Internet data transfer is a service.
> 
> Something to keep in mind.
> 
> Yes, ISPs should "handle" packets in the most unintrusive manner
> feasible.
> But they do indeed have to "handle" them, or otherwise those packets
> will
> come to a halt, because they are not self-powered.  The cost of data
> distribution on the net is "near zero" but not absolute zero.
> 
> 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  Thu Oct 25 15:13:36 2007
From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200710251604.AA04540668@rits.org.br>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br>
 <p0623092ec3468be5d45e@[10.0.1.2]>
 <WorldClient-F200710251604.AA04540668@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <p06230931c3469a59f930@[10.0.1.2]>

You're missing my point.  Most roads are not toll roads, and cars are
self-powered, not powered by the road itself.  Packets are not
self-powered, their transfer is powered by the network.  This is a huge
difference.

We have the same goal here, I'm just suggesting that if you use an
inappropriate metaphor you will be less effective in making the more
important point which is that packets should travel in a non-discriminatory
manner, according to the paradigm of common carriage (which can apply to
both roads and data networks).

Don't overstate the point in your metaphor, because then opponents will
attack the rhetoric in order to attack the message and that just muddies
the rhetorical water.  We agree on the message.

Dan



At 4:04 PM -0300 10/25/07, carlos a. afonso wrote:
>A road is also a service, and the packets have drivers - the ones who
>originated them and are (our should be) the sole responsible for them,
>and "drive" (through instructions embedded in the packets and unless a
>sniffer/shaper steers them) them to their destination. The metaphor is
>valid, since road maintenance can be calculated over time on a regular
>basis (thus is calculated the traffic toll agreement between road
>operators and the state).
>
>--c.a.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com>
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:11:47 -0700
>Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
>
>> At 2:19 PM -0300 10/25/07, carlos a. afonso wrote:
>> >Milton, they should not "handle" packets. The carriers should just
>> let
>> >them pass, like cars in a highway... :)
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately that metaphor doesn't work, however attractive it may
>> be.
>>
>> Once a road is built, the builder requires no energy to keep traffic
>> moving
>> on it (aside from occasional maintenance when the road cracks).  On
>> the
>> Internet, the "pipe builders" are also "pipe operators" and must
>> invest
>> much energy and resources in keeping it running.
>>
>> A road is a product.  Internet data transfer is a service.
>>
>> Something to keep in mind.
>>
>> Yes, ISPs should "handle" packets in the most unintrusive manner
>> feasible.
>> But they do indeed have to "handle" them, or otherwise those packets
>> will
>> come to a halt, because they are not self-powered.  The cost of data
>> distribution on the net is "near zero" but not absolute zero.
>>
>> 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 gindre at indecs.org.br  Thu Oct 25 17:31:37 2007
From: gindre at indecs.org.br (Gustavo Gindre)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:31:37 -0300
Subject: [governance] Civil Society Organizations and Brazilian =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Researchers=92?= contribution to the,II Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
Message-ID: <47210B39.6090303@indecs.org.br>

Civil Society Organizations and Brazilian Researchers’ contribution to 
the II Internet Governance Forum (IGF)


Contribución de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil e investigadores 
brasileros al II Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI)




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: English.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071025/6e5de857/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Espa?ol.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 48664 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071025/6e5de857/attachment-0001.pdf>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Oct 25 16:38:03 2007
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:38:03 +1000
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <p06230931c3469a59f930@[10.0.1.2]>
Message-ID: <21b201c81746$f9036d00$8b00a8c0@IAN>

This debate here and elsewhere is getting very confusing. But to put it
simply.

Traffic shaping is a necessary tool for network management and a good one
for users in that it can dramatically improve performance. 
(eg it doesn’t really matter of your email packet arrives a second late, but
it does matter to performance if your voip packet gets delayed. So traffic
shaping can help performance).

Traffic shaping is not a violation of network neutrality as most people know
it.

Although traffic shaping does involve packet discrimination by type, it does
not provide discrimination by provider or complete blocking of any
particular type of package. That would be a violation of network neutrality
(and some basic rights of internet users as well)

What Comcast has done appears to fall into the latter category.

The principle here (Bill of Rights people, are you reading?) might be
something like "an internet user has the right to expect that packets sent
to anywhere on the network will be delivered".

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date: 24/10/2007
14:31
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Oct 26 01:17:17 2007
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:17:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
Message-ID: <s721403d.015@gwia203.syr.edu>

wrong, the Internet is a best effort network, emails disappear in black
holes/get lost in queues/who knows where the packets get dropped, every
day, 24/7. No Bill of Rights will guarantee packets get delivered.

if you want guarantees go get yourself another network, or pay premium
prices for qos or whatever on top of the net. Meaning: discriminate in
favor of your packets over mine.  

So I'm trying to be polite and not tell all of you squirming to define
net neutrality that there is no there there, but I guess I'm not that
polite.

Yeah Comcast was devious but all you pretending to 'be shocked!
shocked!' that a private company does funny things on their own piece of
the pie, well i guess I should take that back and some of you really are
shocked? I'm not.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 10/25/07 4:38 PM >>>
This debate here and elsewhere is getting very confusing. But to put it
simply.

Traffic shaping is a necessary tool for network management and a good
one
for users in that it can dramatically improve performance. 
(eg it doesn't really matter of your email packet arrives a second late,
but
it does matter to performance if your voip packet gets delayed. So
traffic
shaping can help performance).

Traffic shaping is not a violation of network neutrality as most people
know
it.

Although traffic shaping does involve packet discrimination by type, it
does
not provide discrimination by provider or complete blocking of any
particular type of package. That would be a violation of network
neutrality
(and some basic rights of internet users as well)

What Comcast has done appears to fall into the latter category.

The principle here (Bill of Rights people, are you reading?) might be
something like "an internet user has the right to expect that packets
sent
to anywhere on the network will be delivered".

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
24/10/2007
14:31
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 26 01:23:45 2007
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 15:23:45 +1000
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <s721403d.014@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <24fd01c81790$69497390$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Lee,

and human rights, privacy and copyright are violated daily, are you
suggesting we make no efforts in these areas as well, or these shouldn’t be
covered by a Bill of Rights, because they are not well supported by the
current state of the Internet?

And are you suggesting that no technical effort go into improving protocols
and network infrastructure to minimize packet loss? 



Ian Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: 26 October 2007 15:17
To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

wrong, the Internet is a best effort network, emails disappear in black
holes/get lost in queues/who knows where the packets get dropped, every
day, 24/7. No Bill of Rights will guarantee packets get delivered.

if you want guarantees go get yourself another network, or pay premium
prices for qos or whatever on top of the net. Meaning: discriminate in
favor of your packets over mine.  

So I'm trying to be polite and not tell all of you squirming to define
net neutrality that there is no there there, but I guess I'm not that
polite.

Yeah Comcast was devious but all you pretending to 'be shocked!
shocked!' that a private company does funny things on their own piece of
the pie, well i guess I should take that back and some of you really are
shocked? I'm not.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> ian.peter at ianpeter.com 10/25/07 4:38 PM >>>
This debate here and elsewhere is getting very confusing. But to put it
simply.

Traffic shaping is a necessary tool for network management and a good
one
for users in that it can dramatically improve performance. 
(eg it doesn't really matter of your email packet arrives a second late,
but
it does matter to performance if your voip packet gets delayed. So
traffic
shaping can help performance).

Traffic shaping is not a violation of network neutrality as most people
know
it.

Although traffic shaping does involve packet discrimination by type, it
does
not provide discrimination by provider or complete blocking of any
particular type of package. That would be a violation of network
neutrality
(and some basic rights of internet users as well)

What Comcast has done appears to fall into the latter category.

The principle here (Bill of Rights people, are you reading?) might be
something like "an internet user has the right to expect that packets
sent
to anywhere on the network will be delivered".

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
24/10/2007
14:31
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 25/10/2007
17:38
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.11/1093 - Release Date: 25/10/2007
17:38
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 26 02:12:59 2007
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:12:59 -0700
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <24fd01c81790$69497390$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <24fd01c81790$69497390$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <4721856B.9070008@cavebear.com>

Ian Peter wrote:

> And are you suggesting that no technical effort go into improving protocols
> and network infrastructure to minimize packet loss? 

I think you and Lee are colliding on simply different point of view of 
what constitutes packet loss.

Lee is right, the net depends on the ability to toss packets into the 
dumpster when resources require (or when traffic management mechanisms 
like RED [random early discard] are needed to coax an excessively 
exuberant TCP stream to slow down.

On the other hand, it would be bad if packets were deliberately 
discarded for the wrong reasons.

What are those wrong reasons?  I think we all agree that a carrier ought 
not to drop packets that are from an application that competes with an 
application that the provider sells as well.

But it gets a bit more iffy when we consider some people paying more for 
elevated service, creating a smaller amount of resources through which 
to squeeze the remaining traffic.

		--karl--

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From correia.rui at gmail.com  Fri Oct 26 02:19:00 2007
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:19:00 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
In-Reply-To: <p06230931c3469a59f930@10.0.1.2>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E9E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <20071022225516.GB9438@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9EA0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <20071023221442.GA11623@laperouse.bortzmeyer.org>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58E3B@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <WorldClient-F200710251419.AA19560663@rits.org.br>
	 <p0623092ec3468be5d45e@10.0.1.2>
	 <WorldClient-F200710251604.AA04540668@rits.org.br>
	 <p06230931c3469a59f930@10.0.1.2>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0710252319x5b89afe9r63818ae4386a4126@mail.gmail.com>

So let's come up with a new metaphor:

Rivers that are used to transport timber: the logs (packets) are merely
placed in the river (internet/ pipes) and are steered down in a least
intrusive manner possible. At least this takes care of packets not being
self-powered like cars, but begs the question of who "handles" them

Rui

On 25/10/2007, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>
> You're missing my point.  Most roads are not toll roads, and cars are
> self-powered, not powered by the road itself.  Packets are not
> self-powered, their transfer is powered by the network.  This is a huge
> difference.
>
> We have the same goal here, I'm just suggesting that if you use an
> inappropriate metaphor you will be less effective in making the more
> important point
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071026/b7e34709/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071026/b7e34709/attachment.txt>

From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Oct 26 07:06:49 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:06:49 -0300
Subject: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200710260806.AA06490690@rits.org.br>

People, I do not want to take your time on this, but let me clarify my
points quickly, irrespective of loose terminology usage (my fault!).

My point is: every packet (I am talking about content packets, not the
control packets and similar automatically generated in the
handshaking/authentication/transation processes) is initiated by a
human user who is sending a content to a destination (I am not worried
about what happens to the packet at every router it passes through) --
this human user is what I call the "driver" (OK, I should just call
her/him a sender). The point is: like a car in a highway, this packet is
the responsibility of that "driver" or sender. It is not the
responsibility of the carrier, or the ISP this sender used to generate
and dispatch it.

If "the system" interferes in any way **which is not in the
connectivity contract with the sender** in this packet (by retarding it,
manipulating it in such a way that the flow affects the result expected
by the user -- like a smooth voip call), this "system" (the backbone
operator, the ISP handling connectivity and authentication at either
end) is violating net neutrality principles. 

In a highway, it would be much like a highway operator deciding that a
blue Beetle can pass but a red one cannot. Or that a car carrying
certain goods cannot go through it -- in other words, in this case the
operator takes over the role which is reserved to law enforcement
authorities.

Now, exactly this is what systematically happens in Internet traffic
today. Packets are manipulated, blocked, discarded, retarded and so on
at the will of the backbone operators and/or ISPs (somethings both are
the same entity).

The rest is technical preciousism (I am not sure there is this word in
English) which confuses/downplays a central political-economic, even
ethical question.

Content packets are the responsibility of the senders (my special kind
of "driver") and every content packet should be treated equally by the
"system". It is not their business to peek their nose into our packets!
All they can do is to keep our bandwidth usage within the limits of our
contract. All they should do is to ensure that any of our packets get
to their destination as safely, efficiently and surely as possible.

I rest my case... :)

frt rgds

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
http://tapuia.blog.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com>
To: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, Stephane Bortzmeyer
<bortzmeyer at internatif.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:37:13 -0700
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Comcast Blocks Some Internet Traffic

> carlos a. afonso wrote:
> > Milton, they should not "handle" packets. The carriers should just
> let
> > them pass, like cars in a highway... :)
> 
> One has to be very careful with words in these contexts.
> 
> For example, every IP router has to modify packet headers (decrement 
> TTL).  And some IP options require additional processing at each hop.
> 
> In addition, routers sometimes have to chop a big IP packet into
> fragments.
> 
> So if someone were to write a law that said "no change in packets by 
> carriers" that law would be out of step with the reality of the way
> the 
> net works.
> 
> 		--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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun Oct 28 05:10:00 2007
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:10:00 +0000
Subject: [governance] APC publication: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in ICTs for
  development
Message-ID: <20071028091005.11BEE2746E5@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

Please find below information about a new 
publication from APC on multi-stakeholder 
partnerships, based largely on our experience of 
the CATIA initiative (catalying access to ICTs in africa), funded by UK DfiD.

Together with ISOC, PANOS, infoDev and the UK 
Gov, APC will be hosting a best practice forum in Rio at the 2nd IGF.

The publication will be made available in french 
and english on-site and we welcome all who are 
attending the IGF to join us on Nov 13th at 
1800-1930 fcor the workshop "Moving Beyond the Talk: Partnerships in Practice"
http://www.intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=38

thanks
karen
====

[Version française suit]

New Publication from APC: “Frequently Asked 
Questions about Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in 
ICTs for Development ­ A Guide for National ICT Policy Animators”

Recent years have seen significant interest in 
the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships 
and multi-stakeholder processes that aim to 
address various developmental challenges. Despite 
this growth in interest, partnerships between the 
public sector, the private sector and 
particularly civil society in promoting 
information and communication technology (ICT) 
policy are still relatively new and not always fully understood.


In response to the growing demand for information 
on multi-stakeholder processes in ICT policy, 
this guide seeks to contribute to the existing 
body of knowledge and experience on the subject. 
Drawing on the practical experiences encountered 
during the three-year CATIA (Catalyzing Access to 
ICTs in Africa) programme on ICT policy advocacy, 
it presents guidelines that may assist national 
ICT policy facilitators in coming to grips with 
the complexities of multi-stake- holder 
relationships and the attainment of common goals 
and objectives. It also considers practical 
issues for the establishment of a 
multi-stakeholder process for ICT policy and 
looks at how multi-stakeholder partnerships work, 
what has been successful and what has not, and 
offers some practical suggestions on how to make them more effective.

Download full versions in English or French.

http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_EN.pdf
http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_FR.pdf

--------------------------------

Nouvelle Publication d’APC : “Foire aux questions 
sur les partenariats multipartites en matière de 
TIC pour le développement ­ Guide a l’intention 
pour des animateurs d’ateliers sur les politiques nationales de TIC”

Depuis quelques années, la création de 
partenariats et de processus multipartites visant 
à relever différents défis en matière de 
développement suscite un intérêt marqué. Malgré 
cet intérêt croissant, les partenariats entre le 
secteur public, le secteur privé et en 
particulier la société civile pour la promotion 
de politiques de technologies de l’information et 
de la communication (TIC), sont encore 
relativement nouveaux et pas toujours bien compris.

Ce guide tente d’apporter de nouvelles 
connaissances et expériences sur les processus et 
les partenariats multipartites à partir des 
expériences concrètes acquises pendant les trois 
ans qu’a duré le programme CATIA (Dynamiser 
l’accès aux TIC en Afrique) sur le plaidoyer pour 
les politiques de TIC. Il contient des lignes 
directrices susceptibles d’aider les 
facilitateurs des politiques nationales de TIC à 
mieux comprendre la complexité des liens entre 
les parties prenantes et de l’atteinte des buts 
et des objectifs communs. On y examine les 
aspects pratiques de la création d’un processus 
multipartite pour les politiques de TIC, le 
fonctionnement des partenariats multipartites et 
leurs résultats positifs et négatifs obtenus; des 
moyens de les rendre plus efficaces sont également suggérés.

Téléchargez le manuel en anglais ou en français :

http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_EN.pdf
http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_FR.pdf


=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC 
community - people and        institutions who 
are or have been involved in collaboration with 
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which 
all people have easy, equal and affordable access 
to the creative potential of information and 
communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071028/1b12cd58/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071028/1b12cd58/attachment.txt>

From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Sun Oct 28 14:52:55 2007
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:52:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] APC publication: Multi-stakeholder partnerships
 in ICTs for  development
Message-ID: <20071028175201.0069867873@smtp1.electricembers.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: "analia Lavin" <analia at apc.org>; claire at maplecs.org
Sent: 10/28/07 1:10 AM
Subject: [governance] APC publication: Multi-stakeholder partnerships in ICTs for  development

Dear all

Please find below information about a new 
publication from APC on multi-stakeholder 
partnerships, based largely on our experience of 
the CATIA initiative (catalying access to ICTs in africa), funded by UK DfiD.

Together with ISOC, PANOS, infoDev and the UK 
Gov, APC will be hosting a best practice forum in Rio at the 2nd IGF.

The publication will be made available in french 
and english on-site and we welcome all who are 
attending the IGF to join us on Nov 13th at 
1800-1930 fcor the workshop "Moving Beyond the Talk: Partnerships in Practice"
http://www.intgovforum.org/BPP2.php?went=38

thanks
karen
====

[Version française suit]

New Publication from APC: “Frequently Asked 
Questions about Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships in 
ICTs for Development ­ A Guide for National ICT Policy Animators”

Recent years have seen significant interest in 
the development of multi-stakeholder partnerships 
and multi-stakeholder processes that aim to 
address various developmental challenges. Despite 
this growth in interest, partnerships between the 
public sector, the private sector and 
particularly civil society in promoting 
information and communication technology (ICT) 
policy are still relatively new and not always fully understood.


In response to the growing demand for information 
on multi-stakeholder processes in ICT policy, 
this guide seeks to contribute to the existing 
body of knowledge and experience on the subject. 
Drawing on the practical experiences encountered 
during the three-year CATIA (Catalyzing Access to 
ICTs in Africa) programme on ICT policy advocacy, 
it presents guidelines that may assist national 
ICT policy facilitators in coming to grips with 
the complexities of multi-stake- holder 
relationships and the attainment of common goals 
and objectives. It also considers practical 
issues for the establishment of a 
multi-stakeholder process for ICT policy and 
looks at how multi-stakeholder partnerships work, 
what has been successful and what has not, and 
offers some practical suggestions on how to make them more effective.

Download full versions in English or French.

http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_EN.pdf
http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_FR.pdf

--------------------------------

Nouvelle Publication d’APC : “Foire aux questions 
sur les partenariats multipartites en matière de 
TIC pour le développement ­ Guide a l’intention 
pour des animateurs d’ateliers sur les politiques nationales de TIC”

Depuis quelques années, la création de 
partenariats et de processus multipartites visant 
à relever différents défis en matière de 
développement suscite un intérêt marqué. Malgré 
cet intérêt croissant, les partenariats entre le 
secteur public, le secteur privé et en 
particulier la société civile pour la promotion 
de politiques de technologies de l’information et 
de la communication (TIC), sont encore 
relativement nouveaux et pas toujours bien compris.

Ce guide tente d’apporter de nouvelles 
connaissances et expériences sur les processus et 
les partenariats multipartites à partir des 
expériences concrètes acquises pendant les trois 
ans qu’a duré le programme CATIA (Dynamiser 
l’accès aux TIC en Afrique) sur le plaidoyer pour 
les politiques de TIC. Il contient des lignes 
directrices susceptibles d’aider les 
facilitateurs des politiques nationales de TIC à 
mieux comprendre la complexité des liens entre 
les parties prenantes et de l’atteinte des buts 
et des objectifs communs. On y examine les 
aspects pratiques de la création d’un processus 
multipartite pour les politiques de TIC, le 
fonctionnement des partenariats multipartites et 
leurs résultats positifs et négatifs obtenus; des 
moyens de les rendre plus efficaces sont également suggérés.

Téléchargez le manuel en anglais ou en français :

http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_EN.pdf
http://rights.apc.org/documents/catia_ms_guide_FR.pdf


=======================================
APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC 
community - people and        institutions who 
are or have been involved in collaboration with 
APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which 
all people have easy, equal and affordable access 
to the creative potential of information and 
communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more
democratic and egalitarian societies.

_______________________________________________
apc.forum mailing list
apc.forum at lists.apc.org
http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 29 01:44:54 2007
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:14:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <C34568FE.E233%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <20071029054506.7613367825@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Hi all

 

Thanks Bill for initiating this discussion, and Ralf for taking it forward.

 

May I call upon the IGC, formally on behalf of co-coordinators, to
contribute your views to, and discuss issues regarding, the IGC sponsored
workshop on “Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF”, over the next 2 weeks of
the run up to the IGF. The IGC members on the panel will take a keen note of
the discussions here in making their interventions. 

 

I understand that this workshop will be one of the most important ones at
the IGF, where we have will representatives from different interest groups –
govs, private sector, Internet community and CS – discuss this important
issue of how is the IGF fulfilling or not fulfilling the mandate that was
set for it by the Tunis Agenda, and what steps, in any, need to/ could be
taken in this regard, in a forward looking and multistakeholder manner.
Thanks.

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]

> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:56 AM

> To: Bendrath, Ralf; Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

> 

> Hi Ralf,

> 

> Thanks for the input on the agenda of the IGC workshop.

> 

> On 10/24/07 4:51 PM, "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> 

> >> it¹s hard to see how

> >> it could devise even recommendations,

> > Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of

> > the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be

> > "adopted" by the final plenary.

> 

> We could take up this, and other alternative ideas...

> 

> >> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:

> >>

> >> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for

> >> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a

> >> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.

> >> /

> >> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now

> >> even the term, working group, is verboten.]

> > But we have the dynamic coalitions.

> 

> But they're free floating and don't have the sort of institutionalized

> relationship to the IGF that sub-bodies of other IG collaborations have in

> terms of recognition and ability to input, per the long-ago recs of the

> MMWG.  Should we address that?

> 

> >> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance

> architecture,

> >> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly

> >> within the ambit of any existing body;

> > We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned"

> on

> > the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

> 

> Right.  But per the above, if you folks come up with some ideas, what then

> happens to them?

> 

> > What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on

> > travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

> 

> There's whatever Canada's doing, and someone at the ITU told me today that

> they are offering unspecified support to "18 people from almost 15

> developing countries, and 4 continents."  No reply yet as to whether any

> are

> nongovernmental.

> 

> >> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed

> >> mandate.

> > It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to

> > show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a

> > lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.

> 

> Hence my reply to Adam.

> 

> Any other topical ideas?

> 

> Cheers,

> 

> BD

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/bbf0517d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/bbf0517d/attachment.txt>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Oct 29 03:41:43 2007
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:11:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <C34568FE.E233%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <20071029074150.901F167818@smtp1.electricembers.net>

 

 

Couple of observations on points raised by Bill and Ralf.

 

Firstly, the document that the IGC adopted 2 years ago on the Forum
functions etc looks pretty good. No reason that we go back on any part if
it, especially the more important ones, of which the following line catches
the spirit best. 

 

" forum for discussion will not be particularly useful if it will not be
coupled with the ability to bring all stakeholders to agreement and
determine actual changes (emphasis added)."

 

The logic of expedience and prudence – that these possibilities are unlikely
to be realized in the present context, even when a good amount of support
for them is available in the Tunis Agenda text - is problematic for me. We
need to stick to what we believe is the right thing. Civil society is often
the bearer of futuristic progressive ideas, long before they are accepted
and mainstreamed. In this case what we are asking for is something which is
already incorporated in the text of a global summit, and there are other,
strong, players who are asking for similar things – even if this ‘meeting of
minds’ is partial and very issue-specific.

 

Giving in to the prudence logic and lowering the threshold of what CS seeks
from and of the IGF, especially when other promised post-WSIS processes,
like the enhanced cooperation, either look entirely doomed, or in any case
are likely to offer little space for CS, simply means we – close to - accede
to the status quo in IG structures. This is politically unacceptable for
many CS constituencies worldwide, and we must take note of this fact. IGF is
our strongest and the best chance, and for this purpose we need a strong IGF
– complete fulfillment of Tunis Agenda is the minimum we ask for. We
shouldn’t weaken our positions, even if we have to carry them over to the
IGF re-assessment after the 5th year. Meanwhile, we can build our positions
and allies and use the opportunities we have – for instance, in the likely
review of MAG structure after Rio – to push for small gains here and there. 

 

Secondly, we must recognize that there is a strong element of ‘conceptual
and practical jump’ from a situation of – all may speak, and all views are
equally valid, and there is no further process of validation and
legitimization of certain set of ‘views’, ‘opinions’ etc – to moving to any
other level – even if it is short of clear recommendation giving – for
instance, making working groups and study groups (can they not come out with
some more or less clear outcomes), or even, as per Tunis Agenda, interfacing
with IG bodies (who decides the issues and agenda) or promote and assess
embodiment of WSIS principles in IG bodies ( how! other than providing
conference space for people to say different things).

 

The IGF at present takes the position of ‘we exercise no power’ to a
ludicrous extent, and not being able to decide on a speakers list for the
main session is a resounding proof of the absolute ineffectiveness of the
present thinking about ‘what is IGF’, and its present structures, to do
anything more than what it is doing at present. IGF will have to make some
degree of a clean break from its present conceptual mooring, and accept its
representative character, on behalf of the world community, and in that
capacity to exercise power and make ‘decisions’. It must take this decision
for itself. If it doesn’t, we do not move an inch forward from where we are.
However, once this ‘decision’ is taken, ‘where does the IGF stop’, or the
delineation its ambit, becomes the key issue – and these limits are given in
the Tunis Agenda, and also stated in IGC’s position of 2 years ago. 

 

Thirdly, the above issues of effectiveness of IGF, beyond being an annual
conference, are directly linked to its structures, and the MAG is the
primary structure here. We cannot speak about effectiveness or mandate of
IGF without speaking about the nature and structure of MAG or any other such
body. This core body has to become stronger and more effective. A mere
assemblage of thousands, by open invitation, that IGF is at present cannot
do much more than it is doing at present. It is this core body which has to
assume a good amount of responsibilities of ensuring the fulfilling of the
IGF mandate, with strong processes of transparency and accountability, with
multiple outward linkages. 

 

It is clear that an IGF (MAG) that cannot decide a list of harmless speakers
with the clear purpose of having an engaging and effective public policy
debate (the primary mandate of the IGF) is most unlikely to be able to
formulate any kind of recommendations. But then it looks as impossible that
it could do any other, what may be positioned as intermediate or lesser,
tasks – whether of effectively organizing and managing sub-bodies – working
groups, study groups, dynamic coalitions etc – or, say, “identification of
weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture”. (I am very interested
in hearing about clear implement-able ways this could be done by the IGF,
given its present structure and orientation, for none comes to my mind.)

 

So, what we are looking at here are more basic structural issues about what
is IGF, and what it was meant to be, and what it should and can be. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]

> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 12:56 AM

> To: Bendrath, Ralf; Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

> 

> Hi Ralf,

> 

> Thanks for the input on the agenda of the IGC workshop.

> 

> On 10/24/07 4:51 PM, "Ralf Bendrath" <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> 

> >> it¹s hard to see how

> >> it could devise even recommendations,

> > Wolfgang had the neat idea of multiple "messages" that could come out of

> > the coalitions' work or the IGF workshops and would not have to be

> > "adopted" by the final plenary.

> 

> We could take up this, and other alternative ideas...

> 

> >> /39. The forum could provide, for example, the following functions:

> >>

> >> a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for

> >> peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a

> >> Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.

> >> /

> >> [NB: Clearly a major difference here from annual meetings only.  Now

> >> even the term, working group, is verboten.]

> > But we have the dynamic coalitions.

> 

> But they're free floating and don't have the sort of institutionalized

> relationship to the IGF that sub-bodies of other IG collaborations have in

> terms of recognition and ability to input, per the long-ago recs of the

> MMWG.  Should we address that?

> 

> >> d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance

> architecture,

> >> i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly

> >> within the ambit of any existing body;

> > We're trying to address this for the privacy field (which is "orphaned"

> on

> > the global level) at WS25(SEC) in Rio.

> 

> Right.  But per the above, if you folks come up with some ideas, what then

> happens to them?

> 

> > What about support for "disadvantaged stakeholders"? I lost track on

> > travel fellowships etc. Are there any?

> 

> There's whatever Canada's doing, and someone at the ITU told me today that

> they are offering unspecified support to "18 people from almost 15

> developing countries, and 4 continents."  No reply yet as to whether any

> are

> nongovernmental.

> 

> >> The workshop will of course focus not on the above, but on the agreed

> >> mandate.

> > It still could make sense to refer to positions pre-Tunis, in order to

> > show where the TA content came from and to show as CS that TA is only a

> > lowest common denominator, while we asked for more and still want it.

> 

> Hence my reply to Adam.

> 

> Any other topical ideas?

> 

> Cheers,

> 

> BD

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/4be90ad3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/4be90ad3/attachment.txt>

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Oct 29 14:24:26 2007
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:24:26 +0000
Subject: [governance] [APC Forum] Press release: Connect Africa Summit -- Civil
  society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to
  Africans
Message-ID: <20071029182427.BBB0E2714D8@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

A joint statement  follows

== recommending 12 improvements  to stimulate the 
development of internet and ICT infrastructure ni Africa ==

issued on behalf of the Association for 
Progressive Communications (APC), the Open 
Society Institute for West Africa (OSIWA), 
Collaboration for ICT Policy in Eastern and 
Southern Africa (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT Action 
Network (KICTANet), the African Internet Service 
Providers Associations (AfrISPA), and the Rwanda 
Research and Education Network (RERN)

at the civil society pre-event to the ITU-GAID 
Connect Africa summit in Kigali, Rwanda, 29/10/07.

Please join APC and partners at the following 
workshops on the theme of 'access' at the IGF in Rio.

Regulatory Frameworks for improving access  [ WS 3 (ACC) ]
Monday Nov 12th, 1310-1500
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=36

and

Access: the local challenge [ WS 7 (ACC) ]
Monday Nov 12th, 1730:1900
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=68

and review the IGF programme for other workshops 
on access on Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th november.

karen
====

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION

Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to Africans

KIGALI, Rwanda, 29 October 2007 ­ Convened by the 
Association for Progressive Communications (APC) 
on the 28th of October 2007, civil society groups 
have called for new forms of corporate governance 
to develop the ICT infrastructure in Africa. 
These new forms should "ensure the interests of 
all stakeholders, but above all, the interest of 
African consumers and citizens", the statement insists.

The Kigali statement by African civil society 
delegates, academicians, researchers, consumer 
interest groups, and internet service providers 
is made in light of the Connect Africa Summit 
taking place in that same city on the 29th and 30th of October 2007.

Gathered to discuss the issue of connectivity to 
international, regional and national information 
and communication technology (ICT) networks in 
Africa, the participants recognised that private 
investment and public private partnerships play a 
key role in the deployment of infrastructure in Africa.

The African civil society welcomes the continued 
investment but asserts that it needs to be 
further encouraged through the implementation of 
a stable policy environment that protects the public interest.

The statement recommends twelve improvements to 
stimulate the development of internet and ICT 
infrastructure. Among  them, it calls for 
governments to support the harmonisation of 
policy and regulation to develop and implement 
cross border connectivity. This means giving 
equal priority to the deployment of national 
backhaul networks and international access networks.

The Kigali participants mention the importance of 
the Universal Access principle and specify that 
"such access can only be sustainable if it is not 
only supply driven, but more demand driven and 
responsive to the expressed needs of target 
communities." Civil society therefore upholds 
that governments need to ensure the participation of all relevant groups
from civil society, communities and the private 
sector in defining and implementing ICT infrastructure.

The statement encourages governments to commit to 
supporting the development of national data, 
citizen-centred services and applications by 
themselves becoming key providers of content and 
implementing initiatives that attract 
organisations engaged in content and application 
development that improve access to education and healthcare.

The joint statement was issued on behalf of the 
Association for Progressive Communications (APC), 
the Open Society Institute for West Africa 
(OSIWA), Collaboration for ICT Policy in Eastern 
and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT 
Action Network (KICTANet), the African Internet 
Service Providers Associations (AfrISPA), and the 
Rwanda Research and Education Network (RERN).

The Association for Progressive Communications is 
an international network of civil society 
organisations dedicated to empowering and 
supporting groups and individuals through the 
strategic use of information and communication 
technologies, especially internet-technologies founded in 1990.
http://www.apc.org

Read the full Statement from participants in the 
“Civil Society Workshop on Open Access to ICT infrastructure in Africa”:
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5262405

- 30 -

For more information and media inquiries, please contact:
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC executive director, anriette at apc.org
Tel: +27 834 563 224
=======================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/526e44ea/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/526e44ea/attachment.txt>

From rbloem at ngocongo.org  Mon Oct 29 15:41:42 2007
From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:41:42 +0100
Subject: [governance] [APC Forum] Press release: Connect Africa Summit -- Civil  society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to  Africans
In-Reply-To: <20071029182427.BBB0E2714D8@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <200710291944.l9TJixRA013101@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Karen,

 

I am so very, very pleased to hear about your CS initiative. I had pleaded at the recent GAID Steering Committee and Dr. Touré’s  Briefing in New York that the Kigali Summit should hear loud and clear such a message.

Thanks

Renate

-----------------------------------------

 

Renate Bloem
President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:rbloem at ngocongo.org> rbloem at ngocongo.org
Website:  <http://www.ngocongo.org/> 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  <http://www.ngocongo.org/> www.ngocongo.org

  _____  

De : karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] 
Envoyé : lundi, 29. octobre 2007 19:24
À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Building Communication Opportunities
Objet : [governance] [APC Forum] Press release: Connect Africa Summit -- Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to Africans

 

Dear all

A joint statement  follows

== recommending 12 improvements  to stimulate the development of internet and ICT infrastructure ni Africa == 

issued on behalf of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the Open Society Institute for West Africa (OSIWA), Collaboration for ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the African Internet Service Providers Associations (AfrISPA), and the Rwanda Research and Education Network (RERN) 

at the civil society pre-event to the ITU-GAID Connect Africa summit in Kigali, Rwanda, 29/10/07.

Please join APC and partners at the following workshops on the theme of 'access' at the IGF in Rio.

Regulatory Frameworks for improving access  [ WS 3 (ACC) ]
Monday Nov 12th, 1310-1500 
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=36

and

Access: the local challenge [ WS 7 (ACC) ]
Monday Nov 12th, 1730:1900
http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=68

and review the IGF programme for other workshops on access on Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th november.

karen
====

PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION

Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to Africans

KIGALI, Rwanda, 29 October 2007 ­ Convened by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) on the 28th of October 2007, civil society groups have called for new forms of corporate governance to develop the ICT infrastructure in Africa. These new forms should "ensure the interests of all stakeholders, but above all, the interest of African consumers and citizens", the statement insists.

The Kigali statement by African civil society delegates, academicians, researchers, consumer interest groups, and internet service providers is made in light of the Connect Africa Summit taking place in that same city on the 29th and 30th of October 2007.

Gathered to discuss the issue of connectivity to international, regional and national information and communication technology (ICT) networks in Africa, the participants recognised that private investment and public private partnerships play a key role in the deployment of infrastructure in Africa.

The African civil society welcomes the continued investment but asserts that it needs to be further encouraged through the implementation of a stable policy environment that protects the public interest.

The statement recommends twelve improvements to stimulate the development of internet and ICT infrastructure. Among  them, it calls for governments to support the harmonisation of policy and regulation to develop and implement cross border connectivity. This means giving equal priority to the deployment of national backhaul networks and international access networks.

The Kigali participants mention the importance of the Universal Access principle and specify that "such access can only be sustainable if it is not only supply driven, but more demand driven and responsive to the expressed needs of target communities." Civil society therefore upholds that governments need to ensure the participation of all relevant groups
from civil society, communities and the private sector in defining and implementing ICT infrastructure.

The statement encourages governments to commit to supporting the development of national data, citizen-centred services and applications by themselves becoming key providers of content and implementing initiatives that attract organisations engaged in content and application development that improve access to education and healthcare.

The joint statement was issued on behalf of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the Open Society Institute for West Africa (OSIWA), Collaboration for ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the African Internet Service Providers Associations (AfrISPA), and the Rwanda Research and Education Network (RERN).

The Association for Progressive Communications is an international network of civil society organisations dedicated to empowering and supporting groups and individuals through the strategic use of information and communication technologies, especially internet-technologies founded in 1990.
http://www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org/> 

Read the full Statement from participants in the “Civil Society Workshop on Open Access to ICT infrastructure in Africa”:
http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5262405

- 30 -

For more information and media inquiries, please contact:
Anriette Esterhuysen, APC executive director, anriette at apc.org
Tel: +27 834 563 224
=======================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/3cd75045/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/3cd75045/attachment.txt>

From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Fri Oct 26 15:22:40 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:22:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <C3437E74.E158%drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <C3437E74.E158%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <F4FA9056-13B6-4776-8E6B-3607D1A335D3@Malcolm.id.au>

(I am late to this thread because I have been overseas for the last  
week or so without much Internet access.)

On 23/10/2007, at 9:33 AM, William Drake wrote:

> 38. The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard  
> instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very  
> exceptional circumstances when the parties all agree that such  
> instruments are needed, there could be a mechanism that allows for  
> their establishment. Normally, the forum should focus on the  
> development of soft law instruments such as recommendations,  
> guidelines, declarations, etc.
>
> [NB: In retrospect, this seems a bit problematic in several  
> respects.  In any event, it implies an entirely different beast  
> from what we have, and a level of commitment to more than talk that  
> just isn’t there. The way the IGF is configured now, with no real  
> institutional apparatus or defined membership and just an annual  
> conference, it’s hard to see how it could devise even  
> recommendations, and how the effort to do so wouldn’t become WSIS  
> PrepCom Redux and eat up the entire conference while blotting out  
> opportunities for dialogue.

My take is that the reforms required are not as substantial as they  
may seem.  First, we need to make the forum more deliberative, which  
can be done (for example) by bringing back and devoting sufficient  
resources to the once-proposed Speed Dialogues (and establishing a  
parallel online process), and by institutionalising a mechanism by  
which for dynamic coalitions to deliver their recommendations  
(including background material) to the plenary body for further  
deliberation.  Second, we need a decision-making (ie. recommendation- 
making) organ with a defined membership, such as the bureau that some  
have proposed, which would take any consensus of the plenary body as  
its starting point, and develop a more formal expression of it on  
which the bureau can agree.  Chapter 6 of my thesis has much more  
detail on both of these suggested reforms and others.

-- 
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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Mon Oct 29 18:18:11 2007
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:18:11 -0400
Subject: Malcolm Thesis; People(s) Assembling. (was Re: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF)
Message-ID: <45ed74050710291518y6e0ea04ayb036b20279b06f53@mail.gmail.com>

And a very interesting Thesis (draft still?) it is.  Panoramatic.

In Academe, I was on ARPAnet in psycholinguistics and systems, later &
elsewhere got the design/coding/applications/education  assignment (as I now
recall it) for the first GML (html precursor) *starter set*  tags, etc...
working for/with Geoff Bartlett, and Chas. Goldfarb, indirectly back then;
and for modern ripley's believe it or not - representing semantics as well
as formatting.

Thought you might enjoy that persons of a wide range of ages and stages will
be happy to be your  readers.  Particularly present interest here:  modes of
*people(s) assembling*, online and otherwise.

Met you in Athens (IGF-I) I think, maybe will again (Rio-II).  Wanted to say
the layout as well as contents of your websites is quite a pleasure. Not to
make you blush, but to wave to others who could be interested in history of
computing "and all that entails, or at least some of it."

Best wishes, LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff (Ph.D., J.D.)
For Identification:
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme, The Communications Coordination Committee
for the U.N. [N.G.O].
International Disability Caucus ICT Task-force.
(Other Affiliations on Request).

On 10/26/07, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote, in pertinent part
here:

Chapter 6 of my thesis has much more
detail on both of these suggested reforms and others.

--
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor

...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/631b156f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/631b156f/attachment.txt>

From ronda.netizen at gmail.com  Mon Oct 29 23:31:35 2007
From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:31:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] [APC Forum] Press release: Connect Africa Summit -- Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to Africans
In-Reply-To: <200710291944.l9TJixRA013101@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
References: <20071029182427.BBB0E2714D8@mail.gn.apc.org>
	 <200710291944.l9TJixRA013101@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <ecb9aa080710292031w63e5b808uf1c3f1883e11f18b@mail.gmail.com>

I listed to a few minutes of the forum in Kigali Summit today and was amazed
at the misconceptions that abound.

They said the technology to spread the Internet is there.

I disagree. The technology to spread the Internet still needs to be the
subject of research and scientific work.

It's not that some magic formula of the 'market' and getting rid of
government regulations is going to solve the problem of the lack of Internet
access in Africa.

The Summit made me think of how the discussion on all this is  being kept
within very narrow confines in official circles and that this is a serious
failure.

My article on the talk by Nicholas Negroponte refers to this problem, and
the Summit seems to be the reinforcement of the problem.

The url for my article is

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=c10400&no=380774&rel_no=1

One excerpt which perhaps helps to point to the problem:

"One lesson from how the Internet was developed and spread around the world
is that there was the necessary scientific and technical research to
identify the crucial problems and then the collaboration among researchers
from a number of countries to solve these problems. (5) This was how, for
example, UNIX and then Linux, were developed. This is how TCP/IP, as the
basis for the Internet, was developed. Negroponte said that he was not doing
his program to make money, but neither has he demonstrated that he is
fostering the needed research methodology to solve the difficult technical
and social problem of providing Internet access for all."

How to get the off the wrong tracks and pointed in a useful direction is a
serious challenge.

best wishes

Ronda

On 10/29/07, Renate Bloem <rbloem at ngocongo.org> wrote:
>
>  Karen,
>
>
>
> I am so very, very pleased to hear about your CS initiative. I had pleaded
> at the recent GAID Steering Committee and Dr. Touré's  Briefing in New York
> that the Kigali Summit should hear loud and clear such a message.
>
> Thanks
>
> Renate
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> *Renate Bloem*
> *President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
> 11, Avenue de la Paix
> CH-1202 Geneva
> Tel: +41 22 301 1000
> Fax: +41 22 301 2000
> E-mail: **rbloem at ngocongo.org* <rbloem at ngocongo.org>*
> **Website: **www.ngocongo.org* <http://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* <http://www.ngocongo.org/>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *De :* karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org]
> *Envoyé :* lundi, 29. octobre 2007 19:24
> *À :* plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Building
> Communication Opportunities
> *Objet :* [governance] [APC Forum] Press release: Connect Africa Summit --
> Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to
> Africans
>
>
>
> Dear all
>
> A joint statement  follows
>
> == recommending 12 improvements  to stimulate the development of internet
> and ICT infrastructure ni Africa ==
>
> issued on behalf of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC),
> the Open Society Institute for West Africa (OSIWA), Collaboration for ICT
> Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT Action
> Network (KICTANet), the African Internet Service Providers Associations
> (AfrISPA), and the Rwanda Research and Education Network (RERN)
>
> at the civil society pre-event to the ITU-GAID Connect Africa summit in
> Kigali, Rwanda, 29/10/07.
>
> Please join APC and partners at the following workshops on the theme of
> 'access' at the IGF in Rio.
>
> Regulatory Frameworks for improving access  [ WS 3 (ACC) ]
> Monday Nov 12th, 1310-1500
> http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=36
>
> and
>
> Access: the local challenge [ WS 7 (ACC) ]
> Monday Nov 12th, 1730:1900
> http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=68
>
> and review the IGF programme for other workshops on access on Monday 12th
> and Tuesday 13th november.
>
> karen
> ====
>
> PRESS RELEASE
> FOR IMMEDIATE DISSEMINATION
>
> Civil society calls for new governance to make internet accessible to
> Africans
>
> KIGALI, Rwanda, 29 October 2007 ­ Convened by the Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC) on the 28th of October 2007, civil society
> groups have called for new forms of corporate governance to develop the ICT
> infrastructure in Africa. These new forms should "ensure the interests of
> all stakeholders, but above all, the interest of African consumers and
> citizens", the statement insists.
>
> The Kigali statement by African civil society delegates, academicians,
> researchers, consumer interest groups, and internet service providers is
> made in light of the Connect Africa Summit taking place in that same city on
> the 29th and 30th of October 2007.
>
> Gathered to discuss the issue of connectivity to international, regional
> and national information and communication technology (ICT) networks in
> Africa, the participants recognised that private investment and public
> private partnerships play a key role in the deployment of infrastructure in
> Africa.
>
> The African civil society welcomes the continued investment but asserts
> that it needs to be further encouraged through the implementation of a
> stable policy environment that protects the public interest.
>
> The statement recommends twelve improvements to stimulate the development
> of internet and ICT infrastructure. Among  them, it calls for governments to
> support the harmonisation of policy and regulation to develop and implement
> cross border connectivity. This means giving equal priority to the
> deployment of national backhaul networks and international access networks.
>
> The Kigali participants mention the importance of the Universal Access
> principle and specify that "such access can only be sustainable if it is not
> only supply driven, but more demand driven and responsive to the expressed
> needs of target communities." Civil society therefore upholds that
> governments need to ensure the participation of all relevant groups
> from civil society, communities and the private sector in defining and
> implementing ICT infrastructure.
>
> The statement encourages governments to commit to supporting the
> development of national data, citizen-centred services and applications by
> themselves becoming key providers of content and implementing initiatives
> that attract organisations engaged in content and application development
> that improve access to education and healthcare.
>
> The joint statement was issued on behalf of the Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC), the Open Society Institute for West Africa
> (OSIWA), Collaboration for ICT Policy in Eastern and Southern Africa
> (CIPESA), the Kenyan ICT Action Network (KICTANet), the African Internet
> Service Providers Associations (AfrISPA), and the Rwanda Research and
> Education Network (RERN).
>
> The Association for Progressive Communications is an international network
> of civil society organisations dedicated to empowering and supporting groups
> and individuals through the strategic use of information and communication
> technologies, especially internet-technologies founded in 1990.
> http://www.apc.org
>
> Read the full Statement from participants in the “Civil Society Workshop
> on Open Access to ICT infrastructure in Africa†:
> http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5262405
>
> - 30 -
>
> For more information and media inquiries, please contact:
> Anriette Esterhuysen, APC executive director, anriette at apc.org
> Tel: +27 834 563 224
> =======================================
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/0e4eee70/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071029/0e4eee70/attachment.txt>

From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Tue Oct 30 13:11:01 2007
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:11:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: [millenniumplus5ngonetwork] * Elected to Peoples Congress: Meeting *
In-Reply-To: <62727.1193763571@wmgd.net>
References: <62727.1193763571@wmgd.net>
Message-ID: <45ed74050710301011i6f458861i5c74b8ef5a137419@mail.gmail.com>

Wonderful ROB, the news and this present report.

Hearty congratulations, to you and to us for your being a colleague and so
well networked..

In tandem, *Respectful Interfaces* stands ready to participate as the
occasion arises.

As one analogue, people are indeed assembling in new ways in our time
(though the Internet is not now new of course, social networking is
increasingly apace), and your estimable prior history and present insightful
leadership is so valuable to us all.

IGF-I Rio (internet Governance Conference) will provide more input; I'll
post a report.


On 10/30/07, Rob Wheeler <rob at wmgd.net> wrote:
>
>   Dear Friends,
>
> I am writing to let you know that I was recently elected to the Peoples
> Congress, which was started in France
> almost forty years ago, is associated with the Registry of World Citizens,
> and includes Delegates from all around
> the world. The Peoples Congress aims to establish a World Parliament and a
> binding and enforceable International
> Rule of Law and to support efforts to solve our primary global problems.
> See: www.recim.org.
>
> I will be attending the first meeting after the election in Liege, Belgium
> this coming weekend. I will be in very good
> company as the others elected are also very capable and dedicated world
> democracy advocates. However I am the
> only American, as far as I can tell, other than Lucy Webster in the
> Peoples Congress.
>
> Among my personal goals is to build support for the many approaches to
> creating a world democracy and an
> effective means of global governance – as I believe that most of them hold
> a great deal of promise and it is up to
> everyone interested to choose among them; insist that the UN must either
> be strengthened and democratized or
> augmented by a more effective body; and to call for the Universal
> Declaration of Human Rights to be fully
> enforced and implemented during it's 60th Anniversary year. In addition,
> we should insist that all wars must be
> stopped given that they violate the most fundamental articles of the UN
> Charter; that all countries plan for a fully
> sustainable future; and that all peoples' basic human needs are met.
>
> This could all be done fairly easily if We, the People of the World, will
> insist upon it and act accordingly. Most of
> the proposals needed to accomplish this have already been made; now we
> just have to raise public awareness and
> develop the political will to actually accomplish it.
>
> I would like to ask you for your support in my efforts and would offer to
> represent you and your hopes and desires
> in the Peoples Congress. I am a firm advocate of creating a participatory
> means of global democracy where all of
> the people that are interested can participate directly in solving our
> global problems and creating a world that
> works for everyone. I have written an article about this that is archived
> at: http://groups.google.com/group/
> worldcit/files; click on Wheeler VC Paper.
>
> Please give me a call today or tomorrow or send me an email before Friday,
> November 2nd if you have any input
> that you would like to share with me or suggestions that you want to make
> in regards to the Peoples Congress.
>
> In August I attended the World Federalist Movement Congress in Germany
> where I was successful in getting
> proposals for a UN Peoples Assembly, a Call for a UN Charter Review
> Process and Conference, and a Committee to
> work on this adopted. A group of us also held a number of meetings to work
> on the ongoing effort to organize a
> coalition of people and organizations that support world democracy.
>
> As you are probably aware I have also been quite active at the United
> Nations and other international fora during
> the past ten years. I have attended most of the sessions of the UN
> Commission on Sustainable Development, the
> Annual DPI/NGO Conference, NGO Disarmament Week, Peace and Disarmament
> Conferences, UBUNTU UN Reform
> Conferences, the Perugia Assembly of the UN of the Peoples, the World
> Social Forum, Global Democracy and World
> Federalist Conferences, and many other UN processes and activities. I
> served for several years on the Executive
> Committee of the UN Millennium NGO Forum, as well as on the International
> Steering Committee of the World Civil
> Society Forum and UN Habitat's Initiative on Access to Basic Services for
> All.
>
> Benton Musslewhite, the President of One World Now, has been quite
> gracious in supporting my travels and
> organizing efforts as an International Representative of his organization
> during the past several years. However I
> would appreciate any help that others of you could give as well. If you
> can help with my expenses to continue on
> with this world democracy work, please let me know and/or send a check to
> Rob Wheeler, 1927 Hafer Road,
> Fayetteville, PA 17222 USA. Any amount given would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thank you to so many of you who have and who continue to support my
> efforts as well as your own to make the
> world a better, a more peaceful, and sustainable place for everyone. Let
> us continue on as successfully as
> possible.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rob Wheeler
> 1-717-264-5036
> rob at wmgd.net <rob%40wmgd.net>
>
> 1927 Hafer Road
> Fayetteville, PA 17222 USA
>
> PS – I will send out a full report about what occurred and what we will be
> trying to accomplish after the Peoples
> Congress meeting. Thanks again, Rob Wheeler
>
> __._,_.___ Messages in this topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/message/887;_ylc=X3oDMTMzZ2RpaGFyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRtc2dJZAM4ODcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4BHRwY0lkAzg4Nw-->
> (1) Reply (via web post)
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwb2xsa3JxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRtc2dJZAM4ODcEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4?act=reply&messageNum=887>|
> Start a new topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTBoam9mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzExOTM3NjM1Nzg->
> Messages<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdHNvcTB2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtc2dzBHN0aW1lAzExOTM3NjM1Nzg->|
> Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnYmwwZGVvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4>|
> Photos<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMjRpcThiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwaG90BHN0aW1lAzExOTM3NjM1Nzg->|
> Links<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/links;_ylc=X3oDMTJnOGlwMTJjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNsaW5rcwRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4>|
> Database<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/database;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYTY4Y2VvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNkYgRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4>|
> Polls<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMXMzMnA2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNwb2xscwRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4>|
> Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdmI4azUzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExOTM3NjM1Nzg->|
> Calendar<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDlpOWE0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNjYWwEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mzc2MzU3OA-->
>  [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZWRuMWkyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mzc2MzU3OA-->
> Change settings via the Web<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJna25mb3JwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNzdG5ncwRzdGltZQMxMTkzNzYzNTc4>(Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest<millenniumplus5ngonetwork-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>| Switch
> format to Traditional<millenniumplus5ngonetwork-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>
> Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNnRyaHUzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNocGYEc3RpbWUDMTE5Mzc2MzU3OA-->|
> Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>| Unsubscribe
> <millenniumplus5ngonetwork-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=>
>  Visit Your Group
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/millenniumplus5ngonetwork;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMTNiNHVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzE0NTU3ODU4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTA2MDQ3NQRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzExOTM3NjM1Nzg->
>  Green Y! Groups
>
> Environment Groups<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jvj1pb3/M=493064.11135488.11710474.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060475:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1193770778/A=4776366/R=0/SIG=11mj2s6kj/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/green/index.html>
>
> Find them here
>
> connect with others.
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Endurance Zone<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jsgb79r/M=493064.11135487.11710473.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060475:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1193770778/A=4834084/R=0/SIG=11ikjqbtm/*http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/accelerade/>
>
> A Yahoo! Group
>
> for better endurance.
>  Yahoo! Groups
>
> Dog Zone<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jjuha46/M=493064.11292562.11840176.8674578/D=groups/S=1705060475:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1193770778/A=4836041/R=0/SIG=11o19ppl5/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/dogzone/index.html>
>
> Connect w/others
>
> who love dogs.
> .
>
> --
> 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 U.N
> .
> (Other Affiliations on Request).
> alternate  email:
> linda at 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawomanwithdisabilities.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071030/b31aacd7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071030/b31aacd7/attachment.txt>

From riazt at iafrica.com  Wed Oct 31 05:06:27 2007
From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:06:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] US: Senators Want Probe on Content Blocking by Telecoms
Message-ID: <47284593.4020508@iafrica.com>

  Senators Want Probe on Content Blocking by Telecoms
     The Associated Press

     Saturday 27 October 2007

     Washington - Two Senators on Friday called for a congressional 
hearing to investigate reports that phone and cable companies are 
unfairly stifling communications over the Internet and on cell phones.

     Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said the 
incidents involving several companies, including Comcast Corp., Verizon 
Wireless and AT&T Inc., have raised serious concerns over the companies' 
"power to discriminate against content."

     They want the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee 
to investigate whether such incidents were based on legitimate business 
policies or unfair and anticompetitive practices and if more federal 
regulation is needed.

     "The phone and cable companies have previously stated that they 
would never use their market power to operate as content gatekeepers and 
have called efforts to put rules in place to protect consumers 'a 
solution in search of a problem,'" they said in a letter to Sen. Daniel 
Inouye, D-Hawaii, the committee's chairman.

     A committee spokeswoman declined to comment on the matter.

     An Associated Press report on Oct. 19 detailed how Comcast Corp. 
was interfering with file sharing by some of its Internet subscribers. 
The AP found instances in some areas of the country where traffic was 
blocked or delayed significantly.

     Comcast - the nation's No. 2 Internet provider - has acknowledged 
"delaying" some subscriber Internet data, but said the delays are 
temporary and intended to improve surfing for other users.

     Verizon Wireless in late September denied a request by Naral 
Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, to use its mobile network 
for a sign-up text messaging program.

     The company reversed course just a day later, calling it a mistake 
and an "isolated incident."

     AT&T reportedly changed a service agreement that previously 
included language permitting the company to cancel accounts of Internet 
users who disparage the company.

     Several lawmakers, including Dorgan, earlier this year introduced 
so-called legislation promoting "Net neutrality," which is the principle 
that all Internet traffic be treated equally by carriers.

     Equal treatment of traffic is long-standing practice on the 
Internet. The legislation is a response to suggestions by phone 
companies that they would like charge Web sites extra for preferential 
treatment of their traffic.

     Verizon Wireless is a joint venture between Verizon Communications 
Inc. and Britain-based Vodafone Group PLC.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 31 07:50:13 2007
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:50:13 +0100
Subject: [governance] Warning over Net address limits
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30710310450s362587a9lbfb51ca50eabe27f@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all
I was on vacation and missed you all.
Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC
Website and thought it worth sharing.
Are we heading for an armmagedon?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm

Warning over net address limits

Vint Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the net
Internet Service Providers urgently need to roll out the next
generation of net addresses for online devices, internet pioneer Vint
Cerf has said.
Every device that goes online is allocated a unique IP address but the
pool of numbers is finite and due to run out around 2010.

A new system, called IPv6, has been awaiting roll out for 10 years.

Unless IPv6 is switched on in the coming years, some devices might not
be able to go online, Mr Cerf has warned.

Mr Cerf, who played a key role in the development of the protocols
which underpin the global net, said: "There is a risk of not being
able to get online."

He added: "The rate of consumption of available remaining IPv4 numbers
appears to be on track to run out in 2010/11."

Mr Cerf is about to step down as chairman of Icann, the body which
oversees the net, and is also Google's chief internet evangelist.

Potential shortage

The current system, called IPv4 provides four billion addresses but
the explosion in the number of devices which go online has led to the
potential shortage.

Although IPv6 was standardised 10 years ago it has not been rolled out
at speed.

While modern computers, servers, routers and other online devices are
able to use IPv6, internet service providers have yet to implement the
system.

"The reason they haven't - which is quite understandable - is that
customers haven't asked for it yet," said Mr Cerf, adding, "my job,
whether with my Icann hat on or not, is to persuade them to ask for
it.

  To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean
the internet stops working

Vint Cerf

"If you don't ask for it, then when you most want it you won't have it."

IPv6 will create 340 trillion trillion trillion separate addresses,
enough to satisfy demand for decades to come.

"To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean the
internet stops working. But people wanting an IPv4 address won't get
one.

"If there is an internet that does not support IPv6, not getting an
IPv4 address means not getting on the net."

He added: "The appreciation of the importance of getting IPv6 into
operation is very much more visible than before.

"I'm anticipating in 2008 a substantial increase of use of IPv6,
introduced in parallel with IPv4."

One complicating factor is that IPv6 and IPv4 are not compatible so
ISPs will have to run the two systems in parallel - adding to costs.

In Asia, governments in China, Korea and Japan have begun to lead roll
out of IPv6 and the European Union is reviewing methods to encourage
adoption.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm


-- 
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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Wed Oct 31 08:04:31 2007
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:04:31 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30710310450s362587a9lbfb51ca50eabe27f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a6bc8cb30710310450s362587a9lbfb51ca50eabe27f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20071031120431.GA10150@nic.fr>

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:50:13PM +0100,
 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 104 lines which said:

> Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC

You were on vacation on the Moon? For many months, a huge flow of
warnings about the depletion of IPv4 addresses come from everywhere.

A few good references:

*
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf
the figures and the evolution (nice pictures of train wrecks)

* Afrinic position paper :
http://www.afrinic.net/news/position-on-the-future-of-IP.htm (all the
RIR now have a similar statement, the first one was ARIN
http://www.arin.net/announcements/archives/20070521.html and the last
the RIPE-NCC http://www.ripe.net/news/community-statement.html

* The most famous reference is certainly the song "The day the routers
died" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

ICANN was among the *last* to react (they delayed the addition of IPV6
addresses in the root for months), so I find ironic to quote them on
this matter. Their IPv6 factsheet can be found at
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26oct07.htm

> Are we heading for an armmagedon?

Just for a big problem.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From drake at hei.unige.ch  Wed Oct 31 10:32:50 2007
From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:32:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <F4FA9056-13B6-4776-8E6B-3607D1A335D3@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <C34E50A2.E398%drake@hei.unige.ch>

Jeremy,

Thanks for this.  Will you be in Rio, in which case you could make these
sorts of points in the discussion bit? If not did you want Parminder and
Karen to reference them in their presentations, which I understood Parminder
to be suggesting could aggregate any responses received from caucus folk
(which, at this point, seems unlikely to take much time)?

BTW, the revised agenda with list of speakers etc is at
http://intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=37 and any other inputs
would be appreciated.  The same goes for the workshop on a Development
Agenda http://intgovforum.org/wks_session_info.php?numes=25.

Best,

Bill


On 10/26/07 8:22 PM, "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au> wrote:

> My take is that the reforms required are not as substantial as they
> may seem.  First, we need to make the forum more deliberative, which
> can be done (for example) by bringing back and devoting sufficient
> resources to the once-proposed Speed Dialogues (and establishing a
> parallel online process), and by institutionalising a mechanism by
> which for dynamic coalitions to deliver their recommendations
> (including background material) to the plenary body for further
> deliberation.  Second, we need a decision-making (ie. recommendation-
> making) organ with a defined membership, such as the bureau that some
> have proposed, which would take any consensus of the plenary body as
> its starting point, and develop a more formal expression of it on
> which the bureau can agree.  Chapter 6 of my thesis has much more
> detail on both of these suggested reforms and others.




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Wed Oct 31 13:15:54 2007
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 10:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits
Message-ID: <773398.98942.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Stephane,

Your language is frankly rude. 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. But unless encouragement is given to a multitude of voices, then you might as well go live on the moon yourself.

David


----- Original Message ----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org>
To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 11:04:31 PM
Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:50:13PM +0100,
 Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 104 lines which said:

> Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC

You were on vacation on the Moon? For many months, a huge flow of
warnings about the depletion of IPv4 addresses come from everywhere.

A few good references:

*
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf
the figures and the evolution (nice pictures of train wrecks)

* Afrinic position paper :
http://www.afrinic.net/news/position-on-the-future-of-IP.htm (all the
RIR now have a similar statement, the first one was ARIN
http://www.arin.net/announcements/archives/20070521.html and the last
the RIPE-NCC http://www.ripe.net/news/community-statement.html

* The most famous reference is certainly the song "The day the routers
died" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0

ICANN was among the *last* to react (they delayed the addition of IPV6
addresses in the root for months), so I find ironic to quote them on
this matter. Their IPv6 factsheet can be found at
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26oct07.htm

> Are we heading for an armmagedon?

Just for a big problem.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance






      Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail.  
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 ca at rits.org.br  Wed Oct 31 15:42:38 2007
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:42:38 -0300
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: <4728DAAE.8080804@rits.org.br>

This is Bortzmeyer's compulsively aggressive style (excess lead in the 
body, perhaps?), I guess we have to live with it.

--c.a.

David Goldstein wrote:
> Stephane,
> 
> Your language is frankly rude. 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. But unless encouragement is given to a multitude of voices, then you might as well go live on the moon yourself.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org>
> To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Wednesday, 31 October, 2007 11:04:31 PM
> Subject: [governance] Re: Warning over Net address limits
> 
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 12:50:13PM +0100,
>  Nyangkwe Agien Aaron <nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote 
>  a message of 104 lines which said:
> 
>> Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC
> 
> You were on vacation on the Moon? For many months, a huge flow of
> warnings about the depletion of IPv4 addresses come from everywhere.
> 
> A few good references:
> 
> *
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/huston-ipv4.pdf
> the figures and the evolution (nice pictures of train wrecks)
> 
> * Afrinic position paper :
> http://www.afrinic.net/news/position-on-the-future-of-IP.htm (all the
> RIR now have a similar statement, the first one was ARIN
> http://www.arin.net/announcements/archives/20070521.html and the last
> the RIPE-NCC http://www.ripe.net/news/community-statement.html
> 
> * The most famous reference is certainly the song "The day the routers
> died" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y36fG2Oba0
> 
> ICANN was among the *last* to react (they delayed the addition of IPV6
> addresses in the root for months), so I find ironic to quote them on
> this matter. Their IPv6 factsheet can be found at
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26oct07.htm
> 
>> Are we heading for an armmagedon?
> 
> Just for a big problem.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail.  
> 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
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Oct 31 14:51:10 2007
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 05:51:10 +1100
Subject: [governance] Warning over Net address limits
In-Reply-To: <a6bc8cb30710310450s362587a9lbfb51ca50eabe27f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <242901c81bef$08118a00$8b00a8c0@IAN>

This really requires serious discussion because we are talking here about
the Internet technical community's biggest failure. And most are still in
denial and just think that tomorrow we will roll out IPv6 and it will all be
solved. We wont - and the problem won't be solved.

Here is an article I posted to another list yesterday in reference to
another IPv6 summit promising with IPv6 increased security, more mobility,
next generation internet etc - IPv6 is none of these. Thanks to Geoff Huston
for his realistic analysis of what is going on!

I urge those organizing summits to get real about the benefits – IPv6
doesn’t help security, it actually creates greater mobility problems. (read
about multihoming). It doesn’t do much at all really except address the
numbering allocation issue.

Anyway Geoff explains it below in his report on NANOG. ( I like the Iraq war
comparison – “no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part
started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no
support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that]
victory will be next month” 

FYI,  IPv6 was released in 1995. It’s not the next generation Internet, and
we have to now be realistic about the fact it may never achieve widespread
adoption.

 

 

Ian Peter

 

BEGIN QUOTE

 

Just the IPv6 Facts Thanks 

IPv6 has been around for a very long time, and the marketing message has
been inflated with more and more hyperbole in response to industry’s
continuing disinterest in the topic. Randy Bush gave a presentation that
attempted to deflate some of the more excessive claims about the wonders of
IPv6, such as the rather preposterous claim that IPv6 increases battery life
in laptops! The premise behind the presentation is that the marketing hype
is counter-productive and its not actually assisting in the effort to deploy
IPv6, so its time to take a more grounded look at IPv6 and make an honest
assessment of what needs to be done. The current situation was characterised
as one with “no transition plan, [a] declared victory before the hard part
started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no
support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that]
victory will be next month” The problem is that IPv6 really is just IPv4
with more bits in the address space, and as a result it offers no real
feature benefit but because there are extra bits in the address header the
IPv6 packets are not backward compatible with the IPv4 installed base.
Transition to IPv6 will be hard, and the longer we wait the larger the
network; the longer we wait the fewer the number of IPv4 addresses left with
which to fuel the transition; the longer we wait the longer the transition
will take; the longer we wait the lower the commitment to make any
transition actually work. This is not a pleasant position to be in. 

The presentation advocated a level-headed assessment of the transition
problem spaces. We’ve managed to build a rather complex network over the
years and now wherever we may care to look there are instances of embedded
IPv4 functionality where there are no equivalent IPv6 functions. From
firewalls to load balancers, from mail filters to DLS modems, and from the
DNS to DHCP we seem to have a lot of work to do. The transition to IPv6 will
not be easy, nor quick. It will not eliminate NATs, nor will it alleviate
routing load. The address plan is relatively wasteful and is already looking
finite in size. There is no improvement in security. Incremental deployment
is not possible and this process will be protracted and expensive. 

The presentation looked a number of pragmatic issues involving this
transition, making the case that the time for “more features” in IPv6 was
over and it was now time to move attention to the supply chains and ensure
that IPv6 capability is well supported in products. Dual Stack should go as
far as possible to the customer edge, but even so there will be significant
use of Application Level Gateways. 

The presentation was certainly a change from the more enthusiastic and
overblown presentations that we’ve grown used to, and largely rejected as
being completely oversold as part of some deluded marketing frenzy
associated with IPv6. Hopefully this more critical assessment of the
situation will gather a receptive audience. Either that or we need to get
into IPv6 the Musical! 

END QUOTE


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: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] 
Sent: 31 October 2007 22:50
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Warning over Net address limits

Hi all
I was on vacation and missed you all.
Howoever, I just stumbled on this intriquing article on the BBC
Website and thought it worth sharing.
Are we heading for an armmagedon?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm

Warning over net address limits

Vint Cerf is one of the founding fathers of the net
Internet Service Providers urgently need to roll out the next
generation of net addresses for online devices, internet pioneer Vint
Cerf has said.
Every device that goes online is allocated a unique IP address but the
pool of numbers is finite and due to run out around 2010.

A new system, called IPv6, has been awaiting roll out for 10 years.

Unless IPv6 is switched on in the coming years, some devices might not
be able to go online, Mr Cerf has warned.

Mr Cerf, who played a key role in the development of the protocols
which underpin the global net, said: "There is a risk of not being
able to get online."

He added: "The rate of consumption of available remaining IPv4 numbers
appears to be on track to run out in 2010/11."

Mr Cerf is about to step down as chairman of Icann, the body which
oversees the net, and is also Google's chief internet evangelist.

Potential shortage

The current system, called IPv4 provides four billion addresses but
the explosion in the number of devices which go online has led to the
potential shortage.

Although IPv6 was standardised 10 years ago it has not been rolled out
at speed.

While modern computers, servers, routers and other online devices are
able to use IPv6, internet service providers have yet to implement the
system.

"The reason they haven't - which is quite understandable - is that
customers haven't asked for it yet," said Mr Cerf, adding, "my job,
whether with my Icann hat on or not, is to persuade them to ask for
it.

  To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean
the internet stops working

Vint Cerf

"If you don't ask for it, then when you most want it you won't have it."

IPv6 will create 340 trillion trillion trillion separate addresses,
enough to satisfy demand for decades to come.

"To be clear - if we finally exhaust the IPv4 pool it doesn't mean the
internet stops working. But people wanting an IPv4 address won't get
one.

"If there is an internet that does not support IPv6, not getting an
IPv4 address means not getting on the net."

He added: "The appreciation of the importance of getting IPv6 into
operation is very much more visible than before.

"I'm anticipating in 2008 a substantial increase of use of IPv6,
introduced in parallel with IPv4."

One complicating factor is that IPv6 and IPv4 are not compatible so
ISPs will have to run the two systems in parallel - adding to costs.

In Asia, governments in China, Korea and Japan have begun to lead roll
out of IPv6 and the European Union is reviewing methods to encourage
adoption.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7068140.stm


-- 
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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007
18:26
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.14/1100 - Release Date: 30/10/2007
18:26
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Wed Oct 31 14:57:35 2007
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:57:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <C34E50A2.E398%drake@hei.unige.ch>
References: <C34E50A2.E398%drake@hei.unige.ch>
Message-ID: <1833FB7E-D528-44EE-B404-C214237E418B@Malcolm.id.au>

On 31/10/2007, at 2:32 PM, William Drake wrote:

> Thanks for this.  Will you be in Rio, in which case you could make  
> these
> sorts of points in the discussion bit? If not did you want  
> Parminder and
> Karen to reference them in their presentations, which I understood  
> Parminder
> to be suggesting could aggregate any responses received from caucus  
> folk
> (which, at this point, seems unlikely to take much time)?

Yes I will be in Rio and will ask some questions and inject some  
comments from the floor.  Meanwhile I am on vacation in the UK.  If  
anyone is in London and wants to meet up over the next few days, let  
me know.

-- 
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 shahshah at irnic.ir  Wed Oct 31 15:27:13 2007
From: shahshah at irnic.ir (Siavash Shahshahani)
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:57:13 +0330 (IRST)
Subject: [governance] the book
In-Reply-To:      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d
     e>
References: <s700e0c8.007@gwia203.syr.edu>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <11848.65.91.246.2.1193858833.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir>

Hi,
Just a reminder of our conversation today where I asked for a copy of your
upcoming book on Internet Governance. My mailing address appears in the
box below.
Many thanks
Siavash Shahshahani
-------------------------------------------------
IPM/IRNIC
P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
Tehran 19548, Iran
Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir
-----------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance