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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 >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: 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: References: <200709281732.l8SHWZG1030256@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: 2007/9/29, CAFEC : > > Please , > > Can you add among 27 organisations SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN : CENTRE AFRICAIN > D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > > best regards > > > 2007/9/28, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam : > > > > [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* * > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: <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> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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 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: 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> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> 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" > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Kieren McCarthy > 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: 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> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> 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: 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 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 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: References: 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: 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 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: 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: References: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: 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 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: 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: 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> <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> 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: 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 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> <008601c80418$3080c210$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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: 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> <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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 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: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: > 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" To: "'veni markovski'" 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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 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: References: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <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 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 . ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: 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: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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 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 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: , <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: 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 : > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGF Registration Approved.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: List of Participants.doc Type: application/msword Size: 211456 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <20071003120932.GA18765@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:00:03PM +0200, CAFEC wrote a message of 5806 lines which said: > I am attending for RIO IGF 2007. It starts to become ridiculous. Will we see one message on the list for every person/organization which is able to attend the trip? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Wed Oct 3 08:30:05 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 08:30:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Who will be in Rio? In-Reply-To: <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> References: , <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: 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 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: , , <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: References: , <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: 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. (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 >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: References: , <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> 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 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. > > (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 >> 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: , <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln>, <470395E5.15220.A73EB56@anriette.apc.org> <4E734A26-02B8-40D4-85AD-64DBAD3B46E6@privaterra.info> Message-ID: >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 >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. >> >> (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 >>>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 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 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 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 10/2/07, Milton L Mueller 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, On 10/4/07, Karl Auerbach 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 10/4/07, Karl Auerbach 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 > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS Implementation and follow-up 28.8..ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 165888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chart on post WSIS.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 43137 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au 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 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Rui Correia ; Carlos Afonso Sent: Friday, 5 October, 2007 11:22:10 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Rwanda and media 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 > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br> 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 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 > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20071005075357.GA8523@nic.fr> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0300, McTim 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47049D32.3010801@cavebear.com> <4704BDA4.2020406@cavebear.com> <20071005075357.GA8523@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 10/5/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:04:54PM +0300, > McTim 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: References: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: >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: new from "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 . (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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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: References: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20071005094553.GA24308@nic.fr> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:38:32PM +0900, Adam Peake 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" ----- Subject: RE: IPv4 to IPv6 transition From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" To: Artur Hecker , IETF Discussion 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: References: <866111.74244.qm@web54101.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <4704DE33.9010606@rits.org.br> 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 >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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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> <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 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 >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> Message-ID: 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, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri 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 &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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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: References: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> 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 MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 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: <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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 10/5/07, Milton L Mueller 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: References: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <00a701c80781$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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> 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: <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: <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: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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: 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" 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 10/5/07, Milton L Mueller 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Sorry, Kieren, "CA" is already taken! :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: "Milton L Mueller" To: , "Kieren McCarthy" 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <009101c8076b$82bd5380$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <470772B9.1040504@bertola.eu> <017601c8085d$10d5ffe0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58762@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <676A227C-31EC-426E-9929-7E0FD15C1AD7@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E5869A@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <200710041313.l94DDb8e006699@bids.sdnbd.org> <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> <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: Veni, what to you so long? I was starting to worry... :) frt rgds --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: veni markovski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Milton L Mueller" 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: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DB06@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <009701c80775$809ba070$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <00c301c8078a$17d670f0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <016a01c80857$8a4713b0$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: 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: References: , <4703A7D6.12856.ABA01E7@anriette.apc.org>, 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: , , <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: 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: , , <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: References: 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: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> Message-ID: 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: 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 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 > 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. > > > > (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 > >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: 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 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 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 > 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. > > > > (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 > >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Hi Adam, QUOTE On 10/8/07, Adam Peake 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> 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: References: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 10:22 PM +0200 10/8/07, Seiiti Arata wrote: >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 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: 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" 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 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: (correia.rui@gmail.com) References: Message-ID: <20071009122143.213742202DA@quill.bollow.ch> Rui Correia 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 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: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 _____ 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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 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: 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 _____ 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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: References: <470A4397.20705@bertola.eu> 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: 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 : > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: Hi, On 10/10/07 10:20 AM, "Vittorio Bertola" 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 ’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 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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://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: 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 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: 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 > Reply-To: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space > To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' , > 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: 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 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: > > > > >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 >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: > > A good empirical and normative account on privacy and web 2.0 just came out by Michael Zimmer: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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: > > 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: 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: >> >> >> >> >>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 >>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: References: <812921E865199836924AB813@wav8.apnic.net> <470ec990.261e640a.1894.0367@mx.google.com> 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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 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 > > /(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: > > > > 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: > > /(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: 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 > > 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: Re: William Drake 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: 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: 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: References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> 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 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) 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) 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: ===================== [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: ====================== [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: See also our blog post on the threatened Russian Internet: ================================================================== [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: ============================================================= [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: Read the IGP proposal arguing for multiple signers (released May 2007) here: ================================== [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: =============================================================== [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: ====================== [8] Upcoming IG Events ====================== 17-19 October 2007, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA ARIN XX 22-26 October 2007, Amsterdam, the Netherlands RIPE 55 29 October-2 November 2007, Los Angeles, US 30th International Public ICANN Meeting 11 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil GigaNet'07 - Global Internet Governance Academic Network 2nd Annual Symposium 12-15 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 2007 UN Internet Governance Forum hosted by The Government of Brazil ========================= 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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 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 > > /(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: > > > > 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: > > /(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: References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> 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: 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 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: 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> <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com> Message-ID: 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: 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: 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: References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com> 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: References: <470E465D.9020603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <20071011202430.GA30702@sources.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E70@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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 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 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: References: <20071014131834.7B4522BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> 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 To: Veni Markovski 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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> <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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E589EB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <5EFF8FCD-7471-47C9-9E10-2F746B6CFF67@psg.com> Message-ID: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Been on holiday, hence the delay in my reply: On 10/7/07, Milton L Mueller 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: 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: References: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58597@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58610@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> 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: 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: References: 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> <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com> <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> Message-ID: 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: References: <928259.26006.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <470fcd7c.0e36640a.0865.0caa@mx.google.com> <20071013215649.C49EA2BC001@mxr.isoc.bg> 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: 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: References: 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: References: 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: Message-ID: 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" 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: References: 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: <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: References: 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> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DFF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9E06@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <9761E28B-DA8D-4E18-B09E-C32432C462DC@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58761@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9E58A9F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On 10/16/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: References: Message-ID: >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" 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: References: Message-ID: 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: References: Message-ID: 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: 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From 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: References: Message-ID: Dear All I thought this is pertinent on these forums. Regards, Rui ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: t r u t h o u t 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: 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: <4715D806.10300@bertola.eu> <471A0740.1080705@panos-ao.org> Message-ID: On 10/20/07, Ken Lohento 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 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 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 or 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 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 wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2007 at 04:01:51PM +0200, > Ralf Bendrath 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 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: 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br 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: References: 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 > 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: 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