From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Sep 30 19:41:35 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a In-Reply-To: 3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local Message-ID: Re: > 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. Most critcial to *My* use of the Internet: 1. My Right to Due Process of Law and Access to Democratic Venues that affect the Governance of the Internet, thus the/my means of economic determination. 2. My Personal *and* Personal-Buisness Domain Name/Address, (My: Stall, Booth, Sukkot, Place in the line, My means of economic determination) 3. My Security: in edge-to-edge/all transmissions, and exposure to corrupt network systems. -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ronda.netizen at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 20:14:40 2007 From: ronda.netizen at gmail.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 20:14:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <001901c8037a$68dff3e0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> References: <23e001c8031e$7b7fbb90$8b00a8c0@IAN> <001901c8037a$68dff3e0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Message-ID: The ability to participate - to have an interactive infrastructure The netizen for me as well as the computer and communication aspects of the Internet are the 3 aspects of the critical resources For the computer - the general purpose nature, for the communication - the ability to be have the ability to do networking and to communicate with people and machines around the world, for the netizen aspect, the ability to participate in what happens online, not to be only a receiver, but a participator, someone who can interact with others and with the computers and networks, to be able to contribute to and have a way to be part of determining what will happen with the internet and its development. cheers Ronda. On 9/30/07, jlfullsack wrote: > > Dear Paul > You've got the point : Power is issue n°1, at least in DCs ! > However, this basic principle is mostly ignored or left out by so-called > high level leaders gathering in so-called Summits on ICTs. So this hot > potato won't be put on the (round) tables during the coming "Connect > Africa > Summit" > Best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: ; "'Paul Wilson'" > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:57 AM > Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical > Internet resource"? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > > Sent: 30 September 2007 05:14 > > To: Governance Mailing List > > Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical > > Internet resource"? > > > > > >> 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. > > > > > > 1. Power > > 2. Bandwidth > > 3. Interesting applications and content > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: > > 25/09/2007 > > 08:02 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > -- > J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. > Ce programme a supprimé10817 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. > Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. > Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: > http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From unyasulu at chanco.unima.mw Sun Sep 30 10:39:00 2007 From: unyasulu at chanco.unima.mw (Ulemu Nyasulu) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:39:00 +0200 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: <200709301639000421.00301488@172.20.0.1> Dear All, I am an Internet user in Africa, and the top 3 critical Internet resources for me are: 1. Power 2. Computer - with browser (I could also add cellphone or PDA, but honestly, in my part of the world, the average person does not think about a cellphone as a means for connecting to the Internet - yet) 3. Bandwidth Thanks. Ulemu. *********** REPLY SEPARATOR *********** On 9/30/2007 at 5:14 AM 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sat Sep 1 06:37:37 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:37:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to APC event in Rio, Nov 10th In-Reply-To: <357127D3-ED03-47F6-B76F-B5C8D7371377@privaterra.info> References: <46D816D5.9080709@bertola.eu> <357127D3-ED03-47F6-B76F-B5C8D7371377@privaterra.info> Message-ID: <20070901103730.CAFF21C4A1A@mail.gn.apc.org> hi all As some of you will be soon making plans for your trip to rio, i wanted to inform you of a pre-IGF event APC will be organising on Nov 10th: Password: EQUITABLE ACCESS - A One day event on Equitable Access to ICT infrastructure. general information about the event is below, please don't hesitate to contact me for further information about the event - which will be preceeded by commissioning of papers in relation to the 4 main themes, and some facilitated on-line preparatory discussion.. we hope that some of you will be able to join us - and i now invite others to update us on events they are planning for Civil society on Nov 11th! thanks karen Password: EQUITABLE ACCESS A One day event on Equitable Access to ICT infrastructure 10 November 2007, Rio de Janeiro Universal access, freedom of expression and invoking the accountability of states are not possible without affordable, equitable access to communications infrastructure. In a world where access and opportunities are unevenly distributed, many Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) enthusiasts are developing innovative new solutions to bring people inside the communications revolution, but many of these experiences are yet to be shared. The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), in partnership with others, is organising a one-day event called Password: EQUITABLE ACCESS. This event aims to consolidate emerging lessons and knowledge on innovative access solutions. Why this event? Access to infrastructure is about the innovative interplay between ICT policy and technology solutions that provide access to the global information and communications infrastructure. Access brings people together to exchange information, promotes new spaces for social inclusion and is fundamental to development processes in any society. However many of these innovative solutions are happening in isolation and APC’s event is offering a unique opportunity to learn from and share with each other. This event will bring together innovative minds and experience in developing and implementing ICT policy and technology solutions for low-cost access and connectivity. What this event will cover? The event will look at innovations, policy advocacy, lessons learned and what worked well for each of the following themes: - Business Models - Policy & Regulation - Tools & Technologies - People, network, capacities Sessions will focus on community / national / regional issues and the event will also have hands-on training, demos and displays of innovative technologies. What is the link to Internet Governance Forum (IGF)? Access is one of the main themes of the Rio IGF and will include a session which looks specifically at the relevance of these local access issues to the IG. Who should attend? If you are interested in knowing how people have managed to overcome policy, technological, economic and social – including gender – challenges to bringing affordable and accessible communications infrastructure one step closer to the people - then this event is for you. How can you contribute to the event? Do you have a story tell about people who have made differences in promoting equitable access? Do you know of any policy change that has improved access your community or country? Do you know of any innovative technological solutions? Then please get in touch by contacting Karen Banks, karenb at gn.apc.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 nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 18:04:15 2007 From: nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com (NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:04:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] REQUEST FOR AFRICAN REGIONAL COMMITTEE UNDER CONGO Message-ID: <739306.59291.qm@web34305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Colleaques and Friends, At the just concluded Board Meeting of CONGO held in Geneva,from August 28-29 2007, Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative (NABHI)in collaboration with African Women's Development and Communication Network (FEMNET)drew the attention of the BOARD to extant Rule 32 of CONGO RULES which states inter alia: "Regional committees may be established by NGOs under the auspices of the Conference, corresponding to the regions of ECOSOC. Regional committees shall promote and facilitate collective work among NGOs in a manner consistent with the rules and procedures of the Conference and related to programmes, policies and activities of the United Nations system". It is worthy of NOTE that since the over 50 years of CONGO's existence, this Regional Committee has been non existent, and the implications has been the non coordination of the Civil Society activities within CONGO and other major UN Related organs. The next Triennial Conference of CONGO comes up in Geneva from December 5-7 2007. And it IS this General Assembly that can APPROVE such establishment in line with Rule 33: 33. "The establishment of a regional committee of the Conference may be recognized either by the General Assembly or by the Board at the request of twenty or more Members from that region or having structures in that region. When a decision has been taken to establish a regional committee, the Board shall notify the Members of the Conference" To fulfil the above obligation, you are please enjoined to join both Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative and African Women's Developemnt and Communication Network-FEMNET in endorsing this request by forwarding your request to the undersigned NOT LATER THAN 20TH SEPTEMBER 2007. This will allow the Secretariat of CONGO forward this request to all memebers of CONGO on time before the December General Assembly. Please use the attached letter as a guide and make the necessary changes and enter it into the body of your email to the undersigned: 1). congo at ngocongo.org 2). rbloem at ngocongo.org 3). adina.fulgaradi at ngocongo.org 4). philipe.dam at ngocongo.org 5). admin at femnet.or.ke 6). nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com PLEASE TREAT AS VERY URGENT AND IMPORTANT as missing this opportunity will mean waiting ANOTHER THREE YEARS. Do also forward to other NGOs within Africa yours relate with-NGOs in Africa and NGOs having structures/presence in Africa. Thanking you for your anticipated cooperation Pastor Peters Osawaru OMORAGBON For NABHI and FEMNET Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) FAX:+234-1-493-7203 Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com Pastor Peters OMORAGBON Executive President/CEO Nurses Across the Borders Humanitarian Initiative-Inc.-(Nigeria & U.S.A) An NGO On Special Consultative Status with The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations-(ECOSOC) Member(OBSERVER),United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 295, IKORODU ROAD, IDIROKO BUS STOP MARYLAND IKEJA LAGOS NIGERIA 350, MAIN STREET, EAST ORANGE NEW JERSEY 07018 U.S.A Tel:+234-1-812-8649, +234-1-818-6494,+234-802-308-5408(Mobile) FAX:+234-1-493-7203 Email:nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com URL: www.nursesacrosstheborders.4t.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: REQUEST FOR AFRICAN REGIONAL COMMITTEE.doc Type: application/msword Size: 24064 bytes Desc: 1570702728-REQUEST FOR AFRICAN REGIONAL COMMITTEE.doc URL: From mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 1 22:51:07 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 22:51:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] IT for Change's background paper for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Rio - 2007 In-Reply-To: <20070831041809.CCE43E0FCC@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070831041809.CCE43E0FCC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B3CC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ Subject: [governance] IT for Change's background paper for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Rio - 2007 From the background paper: "It is therefore suggested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the public body in-charge of allocating Internet domain name spaces, should carve out one or more TLDs exclusively for public domain content, say, .pd. Such a domain name space should be run by ICANN itself, directly or through a separate non-profit entity funded by ICANN." Ah, Parminder! Your vision remains irretrievably statist and old-left and you have learned nothing from the past 50 years. This is the conclusion I draw from your manifesto. Apparently, you believe that you cannot have a public domain unless it is run by a centralized governmental authority and funded through tax revenue. You seek to recreate, at a global level, the redistributionist national state of social democracy....without the democracy or a constitution preserving individual rights. Yikes! And then, after turning all such power over to a centralized, remote monopolistic entity you will be completely bewildered when the following perfectly predictable results occur: * ICANN starts to attach conditions to what you can do in .pd, which it can enforce quite well as it controls both access and the purse strings * redistribution starts to go from the poor and less privileged to the privileged as special interests converge on the central authority * the inefficiencies and remoteness of the central authority become unbearable * diversity and competition are snuffed out in order to preserve and protect the political bargains made by the centralized regime, so no disruptive technologies like the internet are permitted to come along again. Hooray, you will have recreated the public telephone monopolies of the 20th century! Only on a global scale! What an achievement! It's a mistake to see public open information as constituting a sector completely separate from and hostile to private markets. Yet this type of rhetoric pervades your statement. The two are interrelated and interdependent, and often mutually supporting. There are all kinds of public domain information available on the internet, supported, developed and promoted by diverse sources: everything from universities to foundations to local govts to slightly dodgy P2P sites. This is not to say that we don't have a legitimate battle over the institutional regime for intellectual property, which is absurdly biased and (contrary to your rhetoric) not a market solution at all but a very heavy handed form of state intervention in the economy. Why not promote the GPL or CC approach, using contractually contructed commons, which can coexist with the good aspects of a competitive market. Always puzzles me why you seem to hate the market so much when in the telecom/internet sector it has delivered such advances in countries such as....India: "The current surge in growth of telecommunications use in India is in stark contrast to the stagnation of previous decades. Telephone penetration nationwide inched up to only 2 per cent of the population in the 50 years following independence in 1947. But industry reforms [i.e., market liberalization] launched in 1998 have propelled penetration to 19 per cent in May." No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 5:21 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.1/982 - Release Date: 8/31/2007 5:21 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 2 15:48:13 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 04:48:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] MAG future In-Reply-To: <46D8171A.1060301@mdpi.net> References: <46D8171A.1060301@mdpi.net> Message-ID: >Dear Lee >>Francis, >> >>Your concern about MAG sounds a bit overwrought to me, frankly. >>"Non-governmental stakeholders that belongs to the IGC would have >>completely lost credibility?" Because? There's lots of meeting I'm not >>invited to, most of which I am happy to stay out of. >> >I am somewhat surprised by your comment which is not relevant >It is not about being invited to a meeting or to a club or a committee. >Do not put aside the issue, and try to lead the discussion diverge away. Francis, I informed the caucus about the dates and nature of the consultation (i.e. open on 3rd, probably closed on 4th and 5th) in May... >Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 21:15:47 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake >Subject: [governance] IGF - next consultation > >There are plans to hold the next IGF consultation in early September. > >Format will depend on whether there's an advisory group (expected >there will be) and thought is > >September 3, open consultation. >September 4-5, closed advisory group. > >Adam This pattern of open/closed (or closed/open, sometimes the closed meeting would be before the open) has been standard since the WGIG. See my email of August 18 and 22 asking for caucus input for these consultations. Adam >So lets put the dot on the i, as we say in French. >It is all about MANDATE : >the Advisory Group has been asked to enhance the transparency of >the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of information >between its members and the various interested groups. > >The MAG should have been announced publicly and IGC MAG members >should have informed continuously the IGC. > >People that are not fulfilling the mandate that goes along with their >nominiation have lost credibility. > >I would add that a few governmental MAG members are quite surprised >by this lack of the transparency in the "civil society" as "represented" >by the IGC. > >> Perhaps there are bigger deals for IGC to worry about like making IGF >>II a success? >A success for who ? for those who do not respect any mandate, the >one from the >SG to start with, and then from the Tunis agenda ? >This is a question of good faith... > >Nitin Desai, the "trusted chair" have spoken repeatedly >about "good faith"... > >. >Best > >Francis > >>Lee >>Prof. Lee W. McKnight >>School of Information Studies >>Syracuse University >>+1-315-443-6891office >>+1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >> >>>>>muguet at mdpi.net 8/30/2007 5:27 AM >>> >>>>> >>Dear Parminder and all stakeholders of good faith >> >> >>>Meanwhile, I happen to be in Europe the next week, and will be able >>> >>to drop >> >>>in at the open IGF consultations on 3rd. Let me know who all will be >>> >>there. >> >>>Karen I know will be there, Bill is based in Geneva ... Anyone else >>> >>who will >> >>>be attending? We can plan to meet. >> >>It happens that the MAG has less and less future... >> >>I learned from a governmental stakeholder that the reconducted MAG >>will reconvene on Tuesday 5 and Wednesday 6 September. >> >>IF this information is correct, >>it would mean that the law of silence and opacity continues.... >>Non-governmental stakeholders that belongs to the IGC would have >>completely lost credibility. >> >>As for the IGF secratariat and the transparency of the IGF web site, >>the facts speak for themselves. >> >>When one reads the last SG statement : >>---------- >>As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked to enhance >>the transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow >>of information between its members and the various interested groups. It >> >>has also been requested to make proposals on a suitable rotation among >> >>its members, based on recommendations from the various interested >>groups. >>--------- >> >>It would be clear that non-governmental MAG members are really >>lacking enthusiasm in enforcing the SG statement, except when they >>are nominated. >> >>I guess that the rotation would be really needed >> >>Best >> >>Francis >> >> >>>Please also let us know what issues any of the members may want >>> >>raised at >> >>>the consultations. I have looked the new draft program and things >>> >>look quite >> >>>fine at this stage. >>>Along with our workshop on fulfilling the mandate of the IGF, three >>>workshops organized by IGC members seem to be covering all the four >>> >>agenda >> >>>items that we proposed for the Rio meeting, which is quite good. >>>These workshops are >>> >>>Public policy on the Internet >>> >>(http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=5 ) >> >>>Towards a development Agenda for IG >>>http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=56 >>>And >>> >>>Governance frameworks for CIRs >>> >>http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37 >>>Parminder >>>________________________________________________ >>>Parminder Jeet Singh >>>IT for Change, Bangalore >>>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >>>Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >>>www.ITforChange.net >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] Sent: Tuesday, >>>>August 28, 2007 7:35 AM >>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] MAG future >>>> >>>>Taran Rampersad wrote: >>>> >>>>>Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The real problem is that the IGF was born with high hopes, but >>>>>> >>was >> >>>>>>quickly dragged downwards by power struggles, short-sightedness >>>>>> >>and >> >>>>>>crossed fears. >>>>>> >>>>>>I agree with Bertrand, civil society should focus on preparing >>>>>> >>and >> >>>>>>presenting a proposal for the post-Rio IGF that restores the >>>>>> >>initial >> >>>>>>hopes, finding a way to implement the mandate that is not >>>>>> >>threatening >> >>>>>>to the Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, transparency >>>>>> >>and >> >>>>>>democracy in the internal procedures of the IGF. >>>>>> >>>>>Concur. >>>>> >>>>I also concur. Maybe you would be interested in reading chapter 6 >>>> >>of my >> >>>>PhD thesis (now complete in draft) which aims to present just such >>>> >>a >> >>>>proposal in detail. Browse or download it from >>>>http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis. >>>> >>>>-- >>>>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 >>> >> >> >> > > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------- >Francis F. Muguet Ph.D MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher >http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net > >Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS) >http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet >E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr >75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE >(33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82 > >WSIS World Summit on the Information Society >Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org >Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org > >Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org > >WTIS World Tour of the Information Society >http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org >----------------------------------------------------------- > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 3 12:27:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 01:27:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? Message-ID: Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the IGF main sessions. The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, Openness and Diversity, for these panels? Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. Ideas much appreciated. There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. 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 hkawa at attglobal.net Mon Sep 3 14:21:59 2007 From: hkawa at attglobal.net (Hiroshi Kawamura) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 03:21:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? References: Message-ID: <00f101c7ee57$51641f30$65013b0a@X60120G> Dear Adam: Some of the Thematic Workshops may provide you with speakers who will represent the contents discussed at each workshop. This will give you some structured sharing of outcome of the workshops. Then you may add necessary speakers. Please note that I don't mean that all workshop but you may select some of them. Best Hiroshi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Peake" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:27 AM Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the IGF > main sessions. > > The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring people > (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from the review of > the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 people, not the > 12-16 we saw in Athens. > > The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel our > views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 or 6 > people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic diversity, and of > course be expert on the issues. > > It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these > panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the workshop > participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest individuals, > expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, Openness and > Diversity, for these panels? > > Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > > Ideas much appreciated. > > There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out with > the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know how the > advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out over the > next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make any promise they'll > be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in advance if the suggestions > can't be taken up. > > 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Sep 4 04:34:56 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 10:34:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation Message-ID: <46DD18B0.4040504@wzb.eu> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on the agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a few individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion on the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers and interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other stakeholders. jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Tue Sep 4 04:42:11 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:42:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Advisory Group note on Chatham House Rule, etc Message-ID: <46DD1A63.9060705@Malcolm.id.au> This from the transcript of yesterday's meeting: >>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ... I have some concerns about the organization role, rules of operation, and so forth in a note that was distributed to the Advisory Group but was -- had also a number of participants outside the group copied, while we establish what will really be the application of Chatham House Rules and so forth. Was anyone from this list copied on the note? Can it be circulated here, or a link posted to it? Thanks. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 4 05:02:19 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:02:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Advisory Group note on Chatham House Rule, etc In-Reply-To: <46DD1A63.9060705@Malcolm.id.au> References: <46DD1A63.9060705@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: At 4:42 PM +0800 9/4/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >This from the transcript of yesterday's meeting: > >>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ... I have some concerns about the >>>organization role, rules of operation, and so forth in a note that >>>was distributed to the Advisory Group but was -- had also a number >>>of participants outside the group copied, while we establish what >>>will really be the application of Chatham House Rules and so forth. > >Was anyone from this list copied on the note? Can it be circulated >here, or a link posted to it? An advisory group member recently replied to an email on the advisory group list and cc'd people who were not advisory group members. No I won't post the specific email to the governance list. Transcripts of yesterday's meeting online Adam >Thanks. > >-- >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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 4 05:10:37 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:10:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DD18B0.4040504@wzb.eu> References: <46DD18B0.4040504@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46DD210D.8090707@rits.org.br> You are right, Jeanette -- we missed a good opportunity, and were saved in some way in the last minute by Anriette's statement, which touched some crucial issues, like the role and "modus operandi" of the two co-chairs, the renewing and the process of the MAG and so on. Her statemens were made on behalf of APC of course, but were quite relevant in my view and I quote some portions in full: On the MAG -- "...it would be important not to again have a delay in the renewing of the mandate, because it has made your task so much more difficult. And in terms of renewal and rotation, we endorse the suggestion that there's some turnover of membership, but it's also important to have continuity. And we would propose roughly a process that would create some kind of nomination process to bring in about 30%, 30 to 40% of new people every year. And aside from a nomination process, a transparent process. It might also be good to link this to assessment. It might even be useful to ask members of the Advisory Group to do a self-assessment of how effective they feel they have been in fulfilling their role. I think that it would also be important to achieve better balance between stakeholders on the Advisory Group, particularly with the input of civil society and also regional diversity. And then to ensure that the Advisory Group that is constituted actually operates as such. The issue of resources which have to be addressed. And as we know from the current Advisory Group, because there isn't financial resources to support participation, it becomes de facto a group of people that can afford to come or that are geographically close to the location of the meeting. And that's just not good enough. I think that -- the nomination process, that's very important. [...] I think whereas it's not a good idea from our perspective to create too many rules, we do feel that the work process of the Advisory Group should be more structured. Participation requires transparency, it requires good information and communication and flow. It also requires accountability, and a little bit more procedure, time frames for submission on aspects of the Advisory Group's work. Time frames for submitting content, comment on the agenda, names of speakers. So to facilitate participation in that way. I know that virtual participation is very important, and we appreciate that, but it's not a substitute for a good, solid, transparent process that allows people over time to give input to the work of the Advisory Group. And then I think also to endorse perhaps what some of the other speakers have said, informality is very important.[...] I think it's important to not lose that role of the IGF where it creates spaces for people to just network. And I think the Advisory Group needs to keep that in mind. I also think the process, the internal work process of the Advisory Group is very important, that there's clear communication within the group. At times today, it felt like some of the Advisory Group members were speaking, because they needed to speak, when, in fact, ideally, they should be listening, because the closed consultation is the space for Advisory Group members to speak. The open consultation is the space for Advisory Group members to listen. But I can also understand why that has been -- it's been difficult for the Advisory Group, because you [the MAG] haven't really had an opportunity, perhaps, to work enough on this IGF. And I think, finally, just to look at the review and assessment process. [...] it's very important to use that and to have an approach of evolving the functioning, the rules of procedure, terms of reference of the Advisory Group. [...] let's have a cycle every year where the Advisory Group can reflect on its own functioning and rules of procedure and build on that." On the co-chairs -- "...the other principle we would like to endorse is the idea of the host country co-chair role. It's a legitimate principle. It's important that governments take the IGF seriously and that they participate. And we have the president of Greece having played a really effective role in hosting. And at the same time, it is important to avoid the host country co-chair or the host country government having undue influence over the agenda and over who participates. And we have to take a long view on this. There are different governments who will host various IGFs. So while we feel as APC that too many rules is not a good idea, but at the same time let's avoid setting precedents that we might regret in the future. And again here, a review and assessment process will be very helpful after this IGF to look at the co-chair role." frt rgds --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. > While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on the > agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only > contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a few > individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion on > the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of > cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers and > interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other > stakeholders. > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 09:26:52 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:26:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0709040626q29bf4f0bt41e27869ece8578@mail.gmail.com> Strong recommendation to identify speakers for the main sessionsin consultation with the stakeholders who organized workshops related to this track. speakers can be taken among the panelists of their workshops or outside of them. For instance, the MAG could interact with the organizers of the 3 workshops on Access to identify people who could speak / introduce discussion in the main session devoted to access. The same could be done with the other sessions. More transparency in the process, more involvement of those who actually cared to organize workshops and better articulation between the bottom-up initiated workshops and the more "official" main sessions. Let's make it simple. Just a suggestion. Best Bertrand On 9/3/07, Adam Peake wrote: > > Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the > IGF main sessions. > > The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring > people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from > the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 > people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > > The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel > our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 > or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic > diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > > It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these > panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the > workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest > individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, > Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > > Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > > Ideas much appreciated. > > There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out > with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know > how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan > out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make > any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in > advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. > > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 4 10:08:43 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:08:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF Geneva -- the repeating arguments... Message-ID: <46DD66EB.50103@rits.org.br> At the open session yesterday we had a reproduction of the same -- a group which concentrates on avoiding any discussion which might bring to the fore the debate on the current names and numbers governance structure, reciting in unison the same arguments. Could this group be convinced that: Of course CIRs are complex, but all other main themes of the IGF (access, security, diversity, openness) are complex. Of course to just say "Critical Internet Resources" may encompass many issues, but so are the other ones (we may perfectly well ask: "what is security, what is diversity and so on). In all of those themes there have been exhaustive discussions in other fora, many papers have been written and so on -- and obviously the issues have not been exhausted. The discussion of any of them cannot be reduced to one or two workshops. So, why there is an insistence on the part of some in treating CIRs as a different animal on the basis of arguments which are valid for all the other themes? Why can't we discuss all the five main themes on an equal footing? It seems some defend dismissing the CIRs theme out of specific professional or institutional interests -- these might not, I am afraid, coincide with the general interest. --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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 4 10:35:31 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:35:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] opening remarks of the co-chair -- IGF public consultation Message-ID: <46DD6D33.20304@rits.org.br> The opening remarks by Hadil Vianna yesterday, reproduced below, at the open consultation prior to the MAG meeting help clarify the whys and hows of co-chairing for the IGF Rio meeting. --c.a. Co-chair Desai, distinguished delegates, First of all, allow me to express my most sincere satisfaction in co-chairing these open consultations in preparation for the 2nd. IGF, in Rio de Janeiro. As representative of the host country, I feel honoured to participate in these works. I can assure you that Brazil is willing to collaborate closely with the United Nations, Governments, civil society and the private sector to ensure that the second IGF will be a successful event. I would like to take this opportunity to stress that, in my country, issues related to Internet Governance are taken up by the Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), which, like the IGF, includes representation from all stakeholders. In fact, CGI.br, that is strongly represented in these consultations, is offering full support to the preparations for the 2nd IGF. I would also like to take this opportunity to sincerely commend Mr. Desai's skillful conduct of this process and his active contribution to the implementation of the IGF mandate. His straightforward style and able guidance have been decisive to the important achievements of the 1st IGF and to the preparations for the 2nd. In this regard, I consider important to highlight that the Athens meeting proved to be a successful event and laid the grounds for the important work yet to be done towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate. I am aware of the general expectation that the Rio meeting will represent one step ahead in the incremental IGF process, in accordance with its mandate as contained in the Tunis Agenda. In this context, we welcome the UN Secretary-General decision to invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process. The idea of having the Host Country as co-chair is a step further in gradually involving the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive standpoint. I accepted this task in good faith and am willing to contribute to my best in order to meet all stakeholders´ expectations with regard to the 2nd IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro. We all are well aware that the IGF cannot be seen as a traditional UN-style Conference. Its format is in the forefront of multilateral policy-making and may set precedents for a renewed, upgraded style of multilateral conferences, therefore contributing to the evolution of the concept of global governance, in an open, inclusive and representative environment, with the participation of all stakeholders. As we are touching unchartered grounds, we need to be conscious of the many challenges to be faced. The tools usually available for organizing, convening and conducting multilateral events are not automatically applicable to this new scenario we are building. Such challenges require from us creativity and innovation with regard to the format as well as to the substance of IGF discussions. I understand that one of these challenges refers to the need for balanced regional representation, according to the Tunis mandate. I am referring not only to Government participation, but to other stakeholders as well, in particular from the developing world. At this stage, it is worth recalling the UN Secretary-General mandate set forth at the Tunis Agenda. He was asked to convene the IGF and encouraged to (and I quote) "examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum, taking into consideration the proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet governance and the need to ensure their full involvement" (end of quotation). This mandate clearly entails the need of a collective work. Although we all acknowledge the competent work of Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and his small but efficient staff, we cannot expect that they will come out with magical solutions to all organizational questions raised along the preparations for the Rio de Janeiro meeting and the forthcoming IGF editions. The answers to some of these questions depend, basically, on policy decision-making. I am therefore convinced that the work of a co-chair can add value to our activities. My intention is to work closely with Mr. Desai, the secretariat and the Advisory Group, in conducting the preparations for the IGF in Rio de Janeiro. I invite you all to join us in this innovative and challenging work. That is not supposed to be a Brazilian isolated task, nor is it a UN task. It is a task that requires commitment and participation from all stakeholders, with open, unprejudiced minds. I count on your support and contributions to make sure that the Rio meeting will be a success, for the benefit of the international debate on Internet 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 4 10:38:27 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:38:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF open consultation -- remarks by Brazil and Argentina Message-ID: <46DD6DE3.6050303@rits.org.br> These opening remarks, on behalf of the Brazilian and Argentinian delegations, were presented yesterday by Everton Lucero. --c.a. Mr. Chairman, The Delegations of Argentina and Brazil are fully committed with the building of a people-centred, development-oriented and inclusive information society, as envisaged by World Summit Information Society (WSIS), and in conformity with the United Nations Millenium Declaration. In this regard, our governments are convinced that the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), along with all other initiatives mandated by the WSIS outcomes, represents a major step towards the construction of a multilateral, democratic and transparent global Internet governance model. While we recognize that – owing to its multi-stakeholder composition and innovative approach – the convening of the IGF poses unexpected challenges before us, we are well aware that Tunis Agenda paragraphs 72-78 define the role and responsibilities of the IGF regarding participation, scope, thematic agenda, internal organization and possible results. Given these challenges, our Delegations support the idea of addressing these fundamental issues in a constructive manner during the session entitled "taking stock and the way forward", with a view to the full implementation of the IGF mandate. Furthermore, our governments are confident that the IGF will be able to deliver on its mandate during the next four meetings already programmed, as expected by the international community. In this regard, I would like to say a few words about the major tasks ahead. The figures reflecting the attendance to its first edition in Athens, 2006, show that the participation of representatives from developing countries was low. Tunis Agenda paragraph 78 provides for balanced geographic representation in the convening of the IGF. In a multi-stekeholder and open forum, the accomplishment of this provision requires that specific measures be taken in the future in order to ensure the adequate representation of developed and developing countries's views. We consider that balanced regional representation is necessarily applicable not only to Government representation, but also to other stakeholders. In our view, balanced representation is an essential requisite for the legitimacy of the IGF possible results, as defined by the IGF mandate. This same balance should be observed with respect to the composition of the panels of all main sessions of the IGF in the Rio meeting. In this sense, it would be recommendable that each stakeholder group appoints by consensus a representative with internationally recognized capacity to participate as panelists in each main session. The secretariat could facilitate, through its website, the receiving and processing of such suggestions. Similar principles could also serve as a guidance to the United Nations Secretary-General in the convening of the multi-stakeholder bureau described in Tunis Agenda paragraph 78 (b). Taking the evolving nature of the IGF into account, and in view of the wide range of issues that need to be addressed, our Delegations believe that the experience accumulated since the 1st IGF allows us to envisage the establishment of such an structure as a goal for the 3rd IGF in India. At the Rio meeting, in the absence of a bureau, the Advisory Group is expected to help the Chairman to conduct of business during the meetings. The Advisory Group provides also a privileged locus to consider the creation of such formal structure. In Athens in 2006, the IGF proved a fruitful space for multi-stakeholder high-level dialogue on openness, access, security and diversity aspects of Internet governance. In Rio, the thematic scope will be widened so as to encompass issues related to the management of Critical Internet Resources, as provided by Tunis Agenda paragraph 72 (j). Our governments hope that, in its next three planned editions, the IGF can evolve into a results-oriented body, so as to provide the international community with substantive recommendations on its findings and on the future of Internet governance as a whole. Thank you. -- 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 adiel at afrinic.net Tue Sep 4 10:42:27 2007 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel A. Akplogan) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:42:27 +0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709040626q29bf4f0bt41e27869ece8578@mail.gmail.com > References: <954259bd0709040626q29bf4f0bt41e27869ece8578@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200709041447.l84ElBvh028221@ns1.afrinic.net> >For instance, the MAG could interact with the >organizers of the 3 workshops on Access to >identify people who could speak / introduce >discussion in the main session devoted to >access. The same could be done with the other >sessions. More transparency in the process, more >involvement of those who actually cared to >organize workshops and better articulation >between the bottom-up initiated workshops and >the more "official" main sessions. Practical approach and I support it as process. - a. >On 9/3/07, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote: >Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the >IGF main sessions. >The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring >people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from >the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 >people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. >The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel >our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 >or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic >diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. >It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these >panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the >workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest >individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, >Openness and Diversity, for these panels? >Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. >Ideas much appreciated. >There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out >with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know >how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan >out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make >any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in >advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. >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 > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 >- Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From adiel at afrinic.net Tue Sep 4 10:47:39 2007 From: adiel at afrinic.net (Adiel A. Akplogan) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:47:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> I would like to suggest Raul Echeberria and Alain P. Aina in the critical Infrastructure Panel. - a. >Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the >IGF main sessions. > >The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring >people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from >the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or >6 people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > >The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all >feel our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these >4, 5 or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic >diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > >It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these >panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the >workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest >individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, >Security, Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > >Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > >Ideas much appreciated. > >There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out >with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know >how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan >out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make >any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in >advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. > >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: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: >269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Sep 4 11:13:52 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:13:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> Message-ID: <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> Hi Adiel (who sits just opposite me :-), last year we decided that MAG members would not speak in the main theme sessions. I would prefer if we keep it that way. Do you think differently about this? jeanette Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: > I would like to suggest Raul Echeberria and Alain P. Aina in > the critical Infrastructure Panel. > > - a. > >> Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the >> IGF main sessions. >> >> The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring >> people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from >> the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 >> people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. >> >> The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel >> our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 >> or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic >> diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. >> >> It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these >> panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the >> workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest >> individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, >> Openness and Diversity, for these panels? >> >> Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. >> >> Ideas much appreciated. >> >> There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out >> with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know how >> the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out >> over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make any >> promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in advance >> if the suggestions can't be taken up. >> >> 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: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: >> 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 4 11:49:23 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:49:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <00f101c7ee57$51641f30$65013b0a@X60120G> References: , <00f101c7ee57$51641f30$65013b0a@X60120G> Message-ID: <46DD9AA3.22457.5BC6E46@anriette.apc.org> Dear Adam I propose that the AG / secretariat give workshop organisers a deadline for submitting names of speakers at workshops, forums, etc.; clearly annotated to indicate who is confirmed and who not. The list should also indicate where people are from, and who they are affiliated to. Perhaps you already have something like this? If the secretariat can then compile this into a compiled list it would make it easier for us to propose speakers that we know actually will be at the event. I am not suggesting this should be the ONLY source of speakers, but it will help. Anriette > Dear Adam: > > Some of the Thematic Workshops may provide you with speakers who will > represent the contents discussed at each workshop. This will give you > some structured sharing of outcome of the workshops. Then you may add > necessary speakers. Please note that I don't mean that all workshop > but you may select some of them. > > Best > > Hiroshi > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Peake" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:27 AM > Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > > > > Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the > > IGF main sessions. > > > > The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring > > people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from > > the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or > > 6 people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > > > > The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all > > feel our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these > > 4, 5 or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic > > diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > > > > It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these > > panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the > > workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest > > individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, > > Security, Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > > > > Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > > > > Ideas much appreciated. > > > > There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out > > with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know > > how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan > > out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make > > any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in > > advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. > > > > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: > 9/1/2007 4:20 PM > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Tue Sep 4 12:01:10 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:01:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DD210D.8090707@rits.org.br> References: <46DD18B0.4040504@wzb.eu>, <46DD210D.8090707@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46DD9D66.27616.5C739D2@anriette.apc.org> thanks for posting this carlos it sounds pretty incoherent to me :) karen should not have let me speak... i was on a plane for 12 hours the night before and did not get any sleep but, APC will try to build on some of these ideas, and inputs from others in the open consultation and then submit this in more coherent manner i thought that the comments from IT for Change and ISOC about having more established procedures for decision making were very useful these procedures could and should include opportunities for input, comment, and reporting routines (e.g. the summaries mentioned by Parminder) it would make it that much easier for the AG to maintain transparency and a regular flow of information to the public and.. i think it could be kept quite simple anriette > You are right, Jeanette -- we missed a good opportunity, and were > saved in some way in the last minute by Anriette's statement, which > touched some crucial issues, like the role and "modus operandi" of the > two co-chairs, the renewing and the process of the MAG and so on. Her > statemens were made on behalf of APC of course, but were quite > relevant in my view and I quote some portions in full: > > On the MAG -- "...it would be important not to again have a delay in > the renewing of the mandate, because it has made your task so much > more difficult. And in terms of renewal and rotation, we endorse the > suggestion that there's some turnover of membership, but it's also > important to have continuity. And we would propose roughly a process > that would create some kind of nomination process to bring in about > 30%, 30 to 40% of new people every year. And aside from a nomination > process, a transparent process. It might also be good to link this to > assessment. It might even be useful to ask members of the Advisory > Group to do a self-assessment of how effective they feel they have > been in fulfilling their role. I think that it would also be important > to achieve better balance between stakeholders on the Advisory Group, > particularly with the input of civil society and also regional > diversity. And then to ensure that the Advisory Group that is > constituted actually operates as such. The issue of resources which > have to be addressed. And as we know from the current Advisory Group, > because there isn't financial resources to support participation, it > becomes de facto a group of people that can afford to come or that are > geographically close to the location of the meeting. And that's just > not good enough. I think that -- the nomination process, that's very > important. [...] I think whereas it's not a good idea from our > perspective to create too many rules, we do feel that the work process > of the Advisory Group should be more structured. Participation > requires transparency, it requires good information and communication > and flow. It also requires accountability, and a little bit more > procedure, time frames for submission on aspects of the Advisory > Group's work. Time frames for submitting content, comment on the > agenda, names of speakers. > So to facilitate participation in that way. I know that virtual > participation is very important, and we appreciate that, but it's not > a substitute for a good, solid, transparent process that allows people > over time to give input to the work of the Advisory Group. And then I > think also to endorse perhaps what some of the other speakers have > said, informality is very important.[...] I think it's important to > not lose that role of the IGF where it creates spaces for people to > just network. > And I think the Advisory Group needs to keep that in mind. I also > think the process, the internal work process of the Advisory Group is > very important, that there's clear communication within the group. At > times today, it felt like some of the Advisory Group members were > speaking, because they needed to speak, when, in fact, ideally, they > should be listening, because the closed consultation is the space for > Advisory Group members to speak. The open consultation is the space > for Advisory Group members to listen. But I can also understand why > that has been -- it's been difficult for the Advisory Group, because > you [the MAG] haven't really had an opportunity, perhaps, to work > enough on this IGF. And I think, finally, just to look at the review > and assessment process. [...] it's very important to use that and to > have an approach of evolving the functioning, the rules of procedure, > terms of reference of the Advisory Group. [...] let's have a cycle > every year where the Advisory Group can reflect on its own functioning > and rules of procedure and build on that." > > On the co-chairs -- "...the other principle we would like to endorse > is the idea of the host country co-chair role. It's a legitimate > principle. It's important that governments take the IGF seriously and > that they participate. And we have the president of Greece having > played a really effective role in hosting. And at the same time, it is > important to avoid the host country co-chair or the host country > government having undue influence over the agenda and over who > participates. And we have to take a long view on this. There are > different governments who will host various IGFs. So while we feel as > APC that too many rules is not a good idea, but at the same time let's > avoid setting precedents that we might regret in the future. And again > here, a review and assessment process will be very helpful after this > IGF to look at the co-chair role." > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement > > yesterday. While the business sector had interventions on almost > > every issue on the agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. > > There were only contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other > > organizations and a few individuals. This is a missed opportunity to > > influence the discussion on the further institutionalization of the > > IGF. It also makes the role of cs people in the advisory group more > > difficult. We have less papers and interventions to refer to in the > > advisory group meeting than other stakeholders. jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: > 9/3/2007 9:31 AM > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 4 12:01:58 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:01:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46DD9AA3.22457.5BC6E46@anriette.apc.org> References: , <00f101c7ee57$51641f30$65013b0a@X60120G> <46DD9AA3.22457.5BC6E46@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <46DD8176.1040604@rits.org.br> Given the nature of the IGF, let us strive to maintain a balance of diverse opinions when indicating names for workshops and other IGF events. Pluralism of sectors and of ideas... frt rgds --c.a. Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Adam > > I propose that the AG / secretariat give workshop > organisers a deadline for submitting names of speakers at > workshops, forums, etc.; clearly annotated to indicate who > is confirmed and who not. > > The list should also indicate where people are from, and > who they are affiliated to. Perhaps you already have > something like this? > > If the secretariat can then compile this into a compiled list > it would make it easier for us to propose speakers that we > know actually will be at the event. > > I am not suggesting this should be the ONLY source of > speakers, but it will help. > > Anriette > >> Dear Adam: >> >> Some of the Thematic Workshops may provide you with speakers who will >> represent the contents discussed at each workshop. This will give you >> some structured sharing of outcome of the workshops. Then you may add >> necessary speakers. Please note that I don't mean that all workshop >> but you may select some of them. >> >> Best >> >> Hiroshi >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adam Peake" >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 1:27 AM >> Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? >> >> >>> Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the >>> IGF main sessions. >>> >>> The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring >>> people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from >>> the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or >>> 6 people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. >>> >>> The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all >>> feel our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these >>> 4, 5 or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic >>> diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. >>> >>> It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these >>> panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the >>> workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest >>> individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, >>> Security, Openness and Diversity, for these panels? >>> >>> Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. >>> >>> Ideas much appreciated. >>> >>> There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out >>> with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know >>> how the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan >>> out over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make >>> any promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in >>> advance if the suggestions can't be taken up. >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: >> 9/1/2007 4:20 PM >> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director > Association for Progressive Communications > anriette at apc.org > http://www.apc.org > PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 > Tel. 27 11 726 1692 > Fax 27 11 726 1692 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- 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 iza at anr.org Tue Sep 4 12:23:58 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 01:23:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi guys, I am missing the fun! (not quite). I agree with Jeanette, as much as possible MAG memebrs remain out of the speaker pool, but help find them from vast resources of great people we have (hopefully). izumi 2007/9/5, Jeanette Hofmann : > Hi Adiel (who sits just opposite me :-), > > last year we decided that MAG members would not speak in the main theme > sessions. I would prefer if we keep it that way. Do you think > differently about this? > jeanette > > Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: > > I would like to suggest Raul Echeberria and Alain P. Aina in > > the critical Infrastructure Panel. > > > > - a. > > > >> Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the > >> IGF main sessions. > >> > >> The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring > >> people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from > >> the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 > >> people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > >> > >> The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel > >> our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 > >> or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic > >> diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > >> > >> It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these > >> panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the > >> workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest > >> individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, > >> Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > >> > >> Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > >> > >> Ideas much appreciated. > >> > >> There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out > >> with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know how > >> the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out > >> over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make any > >> promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in advance > >> if the suggestions can't be taken up. > >> > >> 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: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: > >> 269.13.2/983 - Release Date: 01/09/2007 16:20 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Sep 4 13:14:13 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:14:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IT for Change's background paper for the IGF Rio - 2007 In-Reply-To: 20070831041809.CCE43E0FCC@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Vivek & Parminder, > (lend us your sense of direction) >Subject: [governance] IT for Change's background paper for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Rio - 2007 Ok, I think it�s a great choice (direction). We need to work on it some by building support argument(s). - Constructive Criticisms - Re: Sec. 1: Development Agenda in Internet Governance I felt this was well written and embodies your advocacy, of which you wish to present. In my opinion, you could be more �direct� in challenges regarding the WTO & WIPO. Don�t shy away from what you really want to put out there. In reference to the WIPO issues, I think that gathering opinion from US Patent Attorneys would aid your knowledge/scope of the arena. >From discussions that I have had regarding the issue(s), They (Int-Prop. Attorneys) reduce the specific issue (infringement) down to jurisdiction and enforceability. As the Madrid protocol is the applicable extension of the WIPO. Wherein They consider, what can & what can-not be done. Personally, at this point in time, I think expanding the authority of the WIPO beyond the current jurisdictions of Nation-States, is a dangerous thing. Sec. 2: Public Domain and the Internet This is a good start, the WIPO encompassing its body over �Open-Source� resources, Be it .pd as you suggest or broader (Open-Source/Public Domain as applied to .com .net etc�), is something I could endorse. Again the argument(s) need to be built to support Public Domain advocacy. Sec. 3: Governance of Critical Internet Resources Be more direct in, what your asking for. It appears you omitted mention of Nation-States and their roles in this area. Build some support between: User-Independence and the Governance Framework for Critical Internet Resources. Sec. 4: Role of IGF I think your pulling the Tigers tail here. The Secretary General has already stated that outcomes of the WSIS processes, will be implemented by the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS). [ http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press_releases/2006/NP05.html ] Your best bet is to illustrate the weaknesses of the ITU (historical & present), in terms of the reality on the ground. Then build arguments for the IGF as a conduit (e.g.: the IGF as the completing element necessary for feedback to the ITU). The ITU Diplos� are way to vested to overthrow. But you could make them appear as the Old Soviet Guard they are. (Ask yourself: Why are things the way they are now? If �They� were doing their job.) - Vivek, Tweak it and we'll progress from there. - 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 05:00:34 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:00:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, At the risk of repeating myself, couldn't the speakers in the main sessions be drawn in priority from the speakers who will participate in the workshops related to the corresponding track ? Workshop organizers could play a role in suggesting some of their speakers to report to the main session. Speakers in the main session would therefore be mostly introducing discussion and opening a broader debate in the main session, drawing on the discussions in the workshops held before or to be held afterwards. Main advantages : it engages and rewards organizers of workshops, giving them a say in the selection of speakers; it valorizes the most interesting workshop speakers; it establishes a natural linkage between the workshops and the related main session; last but not least, we are more or less sure that these people have already planned to be there, which is not the case for the great people we might think of but who do not have yet heard of the IGF or have not indicated their intention to come. My two cents. Best Bertrand On 9/4/07, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Hi guys, I am missing the fun! (not quite). > > I agree with Jeanette, as much as possible MAG memebrs > remain out of the speaker pool, but help find them from > vast resources of great people we have (hopefully). > > izumi > > 2007/9/5, Jeanette Hofmann : > > Hi Adiel (who sits just opposite me :-), > > > > last year we decided that MAG members would not speak in the main theme > > sessions. I would prefer if we keep it that way. Do you think > > differently about this? > > jeanette > > > > Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: > > > I would like to suggest Raul Echeberria and Alain P. Aina in > > > the critical Infrastructure Panel. > > > > > > - a. > > > > > >> Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers for the > > >> IGF main sessions. > > >> > > >> The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to bring > > >> people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense from > > >> the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, 5 or 6 > > >> people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > > >> > > >> The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should all feel > > >> our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow these 4, 5 > > >> or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic > > >> diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > > >> > > >> It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form these > > >> panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the > > >> workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- suggest > > >> individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, Security, > > >> Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > > >> > > >> Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > > >> > > >> Ideas much appreciated. > > >> > > >> There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time ran out > > >> with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't know > how > > >> the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out > > >> over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't make any > > >> promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in > advance > > >> if the suggestions can't be taken up. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 5 05:03:31 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:03:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN-Studienkreis Warsaw References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D8E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Registration for the 8th Meeting of the ICANN Studienkreis, Warsaw/Poland, October 11 - 12, 2007 is now open. There s no registration fee. See www.icann-studienkreis-net Best regards Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Sep 5 05:28:24 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:28:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: ICANN-Studienkreis Warsaw References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D8E0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D8ED@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Registration for the 8th Meeting of the ICANN Studienkreis, Warsaw/Poland, October 11 - 12, 2007 is now open. There s no registration fee. See www.icann-studienkreis.net Best regards Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw Wed Sep 5 06:09:48 2007 From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:09:48 -0000 Subject: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts - Speakers Message-ID: <200709051009.KAA04233@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Hi all, The advisory Group has concluded its discussion on the critical Internet resources theme by agreeing to have a 5-7 balanced panel of experts, including the major players, reflecting a range of views. So any suggestion of speakers to represent the civil society views. Qusai ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 5 06:51:10 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 12:51:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> Hi, its a good idea to draw speakers from the workshop panels but we should not restrict ourselves to this group of people. We need to think about experts for the main session on Critical Internet Resources. In addition to suggesting concrete names we should also discuss what kind of experts we would like to see on that panel. Yesterday I wrote that I prefer if we don't suggest speakers who are members of the MAG. I havn't changed my mind on this issue but would like to add that I have the highest respect for Raul and would not like to see my caveat regarding MAG members to be interpreted as a personal objection. jeanette Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > At the risk of repeating myself, couldn't the speakers in the main > sessions be drawn in priority from the speakers who will participate in > the workshops related to the corresponding track ? Workshop organizers > could play a role in suggesting some of their speakers to report to the > main session. > > Speakers in the main session would therefore be mostly introducing > discussion and opening a broader debate in the main session, drawing on > the discussions in the workshops held before or to be held afterwards. > > Main advantages : it engages and rewards organizers of workshops, giving > them a say in the selection of speakers; it valorizes the most > interesting workshop speakers; it establishes a natural linkage between > the workshops and the related main session; last but not least, we are > more or less sure that these people have already planned to be there, > which is not the case for the great people we might think of but who do > not have yet heard of the IGF or have not indicated their intention to > come. > > My two cents. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On 9/4/07, *Izumi AIZU* > wrote: > > Hi guys, I am missing the fun! (not quite). > > I agree with Jeanette, as much as possible MAG memebrs > remain out of the speaker pool, but help find them from > vast resources of great people we have (hopefully). > > izumi > > 2007/9/5, Jeanette Hofmann >: > > Hi Adiel (who sits just opposite me :-), > > > > last year we decided that MAG members would not speak in the main > theme > > sessions. I would prefer if we keep it that way. Do you think > > differently about this? > > jeanette > > > > Adiel A. Akplogan wrote: > > > I would like to suggest Raul Echeberria and Alain P. Aina in > > > the critical Infrastructure Panel. > > > > > > - a. > > > > > >> Some time very soon someone will need to decide on speakers > for the > > >> IGF main sessions. > > >> > > >> The IGF in Rio starts in about 10 weeks, there is no money to > bring > > >> people (to the best of my knowledge.) There was general sense > from > > >> the review of the Athens IGF that panels should be smaller, 4, > 5 or 6 > > >> people, not the 12-16 we saw in Athens. > > >> > > >> The panels must be acceptable to all stakeholders, we should > all feel > > >> our views have an opportunity to be represented. Somehow > these 4, 5 > > >> or 6 people should represent stakeholder, gender, geographic > > >> diversity, and of course be expert on the issues. > > >> > > >> It would be very helpful to hear suggestions as to how to form > these > > >> panels. Perhaps we will be able to find panelists from among the > > >> workshop participants? Or, can we --the caucus and others-- > suggest > > >> individuals, expert on Critical Internet Resources, Access, > Security, > > >> Openness and Diversity, for these panels? > > >> > > >> Anyone suggested should already be planning to be in Rio. > > >> > > >> Ideas much appreciated. > > >> > > >> There is not time for a neat, open, democratic process. Time > ran out > > >> with the delay in renewing the MAG's membership. And I don't > know how > > >> the advisory group's discussions on speaker selection will pan out > > >> over the next two days. So if we make suggestions I can't > make any > > >> promise they'll be accepted. But we can try, and apologies in > advance > > >> if the suggestions can't be taken up. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> > > >> Adam > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 5 07:08:21 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:38:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DD18B0.4040504@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070905110822.82DA2E0620@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi Jeanette I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that members may want raised and myself presented some views in how things stood vis a vis preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but there has been too much silence on the IGC lately, a situation which despite some efforts by me and some others did not change much. For instance, we need discussions on the issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Bertrand made the very useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on giving new definitions and recommendations etc... I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken forward... I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd in Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some kind of statement could be read out, after collectively determining that it is in consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded... On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very well - that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues of rotation of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders themselves, and of the governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and some others supported the statement. And also added the point of transparency of MAG and flow of information and gave some concrete suggestion.. I have a feeling that the suggestion for a meeting report of the closed sessions may be accepted since Nitin responded quite well to it. This will also specifically address the concern raised in the UN SG's communiqué. I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been adopted as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some activity on the IGC prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to those present to judge the 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a statement 'on their feet'. In this case, as an additional factor which worked against a pre-prepared statement, the agenda for the consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am right)... The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most contributions for the technical and business community (on these issues, MAG members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette observed in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than other sessions (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC could only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation > > Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. > While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on the > agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only > contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a few > individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion on > the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of > cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers and > interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other > stakeholders. > jeanette > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 5 07:53:46 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:53:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 9/5/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, > > its a good idea to draw speakers from the workshop panels but we should > not restrict ourselves to this group of people. > We need to think about experts for the main session on Critical Internet > Resources. In addition to suggesting concrete names we should also > discuss what kind of experts we would like to see on that panel. somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 08:19:58 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:19:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 9/5/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 02:53:46PM +0300, > McTim wrote > a message of 30 lines which said: > > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > What's the link between St. Amour and the IETF? > http://isoc.org/standards/ _ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and the Internet Research Task Force - the standards setting and research arms of the Internet community. _ -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Sep 5 08:26:50 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:26:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:19:58PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > > > What's the link between St. Amour and the IETF? > > > > http://isoc.org/standards/ > > _ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task > Force (IETF), In that case, the representative from IANA should be someone from the US government. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Wed Sep 5 08:52:46 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:52:46 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <20070905110822.82DA2E0620@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070905110822.82DA2E0620@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46DEA69E.4090903@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > For instance, we need discussions on the > issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in > IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Is this communiqué public? If not, how can we discuss it? Anyway, what I took away from the September open consultation was how almost everything that civil society agitates for seems eventually to be taken up by other stakeholder groups, or even by the Secretariat, some months later. For example: * Criteria for accreditation of dynamic coalitions is something we asked for last year, which, out of the blue, Markus Kummer has recognised the need for this week; * Back in February we suggested a main session should be held on the role and mandate of the IGF, and lo and behold, Brazil has now suggested "a main session dedicated to the future of the IGF ... with a view to the full implementation of the IGF mandate"; * In the last consultations, much the same happened with our previous suggestions about the need for the IGF to produce reports with its conclusions, and the need for the dynamic coalitions to take the lead in producing tangible outcomes for the IGF; * Not so much something that the IGC has spoken about, but I've written about the eventual need for the IGF to become independent from the UN, and even this has been acknowledged by Nitin Desai this week: At the moment, this process is constituted as an instruction to the Secretary-General to call a meeting and constitute an Advisory Group. That's the formal status of this meeting. It's a meeting called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I'm talking of the main IGF. Because that's the way in which that mandate was specified. But [reform] is a long-term issue. It certainly needs to be looked at. So while it may *seem* that asking for outlandish reforms is impolitic or will make us look foolish to other stakeholders, it ain't necessarily so. Often our thinking is just in advance of that of others. -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 5 09:21:17 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:51:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070905110822.82DA2E0620@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Carrying on from my own email > The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most > contributions for the technical and business community (on these issues, > MAG > members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette > observed > in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were > > (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than other > sessions > > (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF > > Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC could > only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. > > So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) > > Parminder Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on CIRs.... So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should be treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and frankly, I could not really understand even one argument well..... It may be my ignorance and inaptitude but they seem to be putting some meaningless argument or other to push this very illogical thing that a CIR main session should be different (basically ineffectual). Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related proposals >finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the >Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and democracy >in the internal procedures of the IGF. I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what is it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss real issues, perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy arguments. The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported more transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts with stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than masquerading them in arguments that look quite untenable. The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that threatens the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why? Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and now when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality. Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué or any such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda for the IGF look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do, what are the REAL fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other work it needs to do. But then many (not all) who now oppose recommendation have not initially been enthusiastic about the IGF as a public policy discussion space at all (remember the last phase of the WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of IGF getting unable to do its basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the fear that governments will capture recommendation-making activity. I don’t see how this can happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may be wrong on this, and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad' scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space where non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy recommendations. The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able to agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why kill the first and the only multistakeholder global policy recommendation giving body? Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side may realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other may find that certain fears may not be so justified. It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself, since quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation > > > Hi Jeanette > > I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that members may > want raised and myself presented some views in how things stood vis a vis > preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but there has been too > much > silence on the IGC lately, a situation which despite some efforts by me > and > some others did not change much. For instance, we need discussions on the > issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in > IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Bertrand > made the very useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on giving > new definitions and recommendations etc... > > I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken forward... > > I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd in > Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some kind of > statement could be read out, after collectively determining that it is in > consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded... > > On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very well - > that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues of rotation > of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders themselves, and of > the > governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and some others supported the > statement. And also added the point of transparency of MAG and flow of > information and gave some concrete suggestion.. I have a feeling that the > suggestion for a meeting report of the closed sessions may be accepted > since > Nitin responded quite well to it. This will also specifically address the > concern raised in the UN SG's communiqué. > > I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been > adopted > as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some activity on the IGC > prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to those present to judge the > 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a statement 'on their feet'. In this > case, as an additional factor which worked against a pre-prepared > statement, > the agenda for the consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am > right)... > > The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most > contributions for the technical and business community (on these issues, > MAG > members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette > observed > in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were > > (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than other > sessions > > (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF > > Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC could > only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. > > So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) > > Parminder > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation > > > > Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. > > While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on the > > agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only > > contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a few > > individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion on > > the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of > > cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers and > > interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other > > stakeholders. > > jeanette > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 5 09:37:27 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:07:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DEA69E.4090903@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <20070905133750.42D9A6789B@smtp1.electricembers.net> > Is this communiqué public? If not, how can we discuss it? This is the same announcement from the UN that you forwarded to the list, and was discussed here. Your email is enclosed for the reference of others... > So while it may *seem* that asking for outlandish reforms is impolitic > or will make us look foolish to other stakeholders, it ain't necessarily > so. Often our thinking is just in advance of that of others. Very right. And civil society as a non-institutional player, with fewest constraints that come through having interests in maintaining institutional inertias, is expected to do the forward thinking, and while staying strategic, it should not be too constrained with what may look immediately unlikely. It is our work to put our finger on the changes which we will like to see carried through and then look at the range of possible practical and immediate steps. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF public consultation > > Parminder wrote: > > For instance, we need discussions on the > > issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc > in > > IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. > > Is this communiqué public? If not, how can we discuss it? > > Anyway, what I took away from the September open consultation was how > almost everything that civil society agitates for seems eventually to be > taken up by other stakeholder groups, or even by the Secretariat, some > months later. For example: > > * Criteria for accreditation of dynamic coalitions is something we asked > for last year, which, out of the blue, Markus Kummer has recognised > the need for this week; > > * Back in February we suggested a main session should be held on the > role and mandate of the IGF, and lo and behold, Brazil has now > suggested "a main session dedicated to the future of the IGF ... with > a view to the full implementation of the IGF mandate"; > > * In the last consultations, much the same happened with our previous > suggestions about the need for the IGF to produce reports with its > conclusions, and the need for the dynamic coalitions to take the lead > in producing tangible outcomes for the IGF; > > * Not so much something that the IGC has spoken about, but I've written > about the eventual need for the IGF to become independent from the UN, > and even this has been acknowledged by Nitin Desai this week: > > At the moment, this process is constituted as an instruction to > the Secretary-General to call a meeting and constitute an > Advisory Group. That's the formal status of this meeting. It's a > meeting called by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, > I'm talking of the main IGF. Because that's the way in which > that mandate was specified. But [reform] is a long-term issue. > It certainly needs to be looked at. > > So while it may *seem* that asking for outlandish reforms is impolitic > or will make us look foolish to other stakeholders, it ain't necessarily > so. Often our thinking is just in advance of that of others. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Jeremy Malcolm" Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGF/MAG renewal an opaque and non-incluse process / un processus opague et non-inclusif] Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:18:36 +0530 Size: 67855 URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 5 10:30:33 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:30:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Wow, McTim, these people can surely speak English! There is (good and intelligent) life on these fields south of the Equator as well. --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:53:46 +0300 Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > On 9/5/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > > > its a good idea to draw speakers from the workshop panels but we > should > > not restrict ourselves to this group of people. > > We need to think about experts for the main session on Critical > Internet > > Resources. In addition to suggesting concrete names we should also > > discuss what kind of experts we would like to see on that panel. > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) > somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) > somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 5 10:32:51 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:32:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> References: <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> Message-ID: Implacable Stephane! :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: McTim Cc: Governance Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:26:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:19:58PM +0300, > McTim wrote > a message of 23 lines which said: > > > > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > > > > > What's the link between St. Amour and the IETF? > > > > > > > http://isoc.org/standards/ > > > > _ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task > > Force (IETF), > > In that case, the representative from IANA should be someone from the > US government. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 5 10:52:38 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: 20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: > Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on CIRs.... So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should be treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and frankly, I could not really understand even one argument well..... It may be my ignorance and inaptitude but they seem to be putting some meaningless argument or other to push this very illogical thing that a CIR main session should be different (basically ineffectual). aws: Money, Control, Power Its Politics, pure and simple - > And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what is it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss real issues, perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy arguments. aws: IMO, the 'Internet Community' has no 'Due Process of Law' in its present malformed state. It is presently subject to secular interest, of which, disrupt the Union of the Community.(Separatist interventions). Without the solidarity of a Constitutional Union, the 'Community' will continue to be the subject of Separatists. - > .. And civil society as a non-institutional player, *** with fewest constraints that come through having interests in maintaining institutional inertias, is expected to do the forward thinking, and while staying strategic, *** ... aws: Right-On Parminder! The UN & Icann still remain a syllogistic construct. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Sep 5 14:32:08 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:32:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> Hi Parminder, judging from what I heard the last 3 days in Geneva what people find threatening are basically two things. 1. An ideological deadlock resulting from a polarizing discussion that narrows down potential options for future governance models to exactly two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). We all know from WSIS that dichotomic debates don't lead anywhere because none of the participants seems willing to change political preferences. 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in Internet Governance. I am sure there are lots of other reasons why people prefer not to discuss critical internet resources. But the two reasons mentioned above are in my view already important enough to take them seriously. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Carrying on from my own email > >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these issues, >> MAG >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette >> observed >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were >> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than other >> sessions >> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF >> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC could >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. >> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) >> >> Parminder > > Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on > trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on CIRs.... > So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should be > treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and frankly, I could > not really understand even one argument well..... It may be my ignorance and > inaptitude but they seem to be putting some meaningless argument or other to > push this very illogical thing that a CIR main session should be different > (basically ineffectual). > > Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a > pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related proposals > >> finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the >> Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and democracy >> in the internal procedures of the IGF. > > I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what is > it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss real issues, > perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy arguments. > The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported more > transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts with > stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than masquerading them > in arguments that look quite untenable. > > The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that threatens > the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why? > > Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and now > when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality. > > Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué or any > such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda for the IGF > look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do, what are the REAL > fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other work it needs to do. But > then many (not all) who now oppose recommendation have not initially been > enthusiastic about the IGF as a public policy discussion space at all > (remember the last phase of the WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of IGF > getting unable to do its basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the > fear that governments will capture recommendation-making activity. I don’t > see how this can happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may be > wrong on this, and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad' > scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space where > non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy > recommendations. > > The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able to > agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why kill the > first and the only multistakeholder global policy recommendation giving > body? > > Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side may > realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other may find > that certain fears may not be so justified. > > It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself, since > quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation >> >> >> Hi Jeanette >> >> I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that members may >> want raised and myself presented some views in how things stood vis a vis >> preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but there has been too >> much >> silence on the IGC lately, a situation which despite some efforts by me >> and >> some others did not change much. For instance, we need discussions on the >> issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in >> IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Bertrand >> made the very useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on giving >> new definitions and recommendations etc... >> >> I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken forward... >> >> I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd in >> Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some kind of >> statement could be read out, after collectively determining that it is in >> consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded... >> >> On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very well - >> that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues of rotation >> of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders themselves, and of >> the >> governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and some others supported the >> statement. And also added the point of transparency of MAG and flow of >> information and gave some concrete suggestion.. I have a feeling that the >> suggestion for a meeting report of the closed sessions may be accepted >> since >> Nitin responded quite well to it. This will also specifically address the >> concern raised in the UN SG's communiqué. >> >> I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been >> adopted >> as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some activity on the IGC >> prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to those present to judge the >> 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a statement 'on their feet'. In this >> case, as an additional factor which worked against a pre-prepared >> statement, >> the agenda for the consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am >> right)... >> >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these issues, >> MAG >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette >> observed >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were >> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than other >> sessions >> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF >> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC could >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. >> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) >> >> Parminder > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> IT for Change, Bangalore >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> www.ITforChange.net >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation >>> >>> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. >>> While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on the >>> agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only >>> contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a few >>> individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion on >>> the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of >>> cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers and >>> interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other >>> stakeholders. >>> jeanette >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed Sep 5 18:19:10 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:19:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46DF2B5E.7080301@cavebear.com> Parminder wrote: > I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what is > it exactly that threatens the Internet community. 1. An overriding exclusion of living, breathing people, or their chosen delegates from the process of making decisions. Already ICANN is sucking nearly $500,000,000 (US) every year out of the pockets of internet users (and putting it into the pockets of registries) without providing any way for those users to have a meaningful voice. The word "stakeholder" should be stricken from the vocabulary of governance and replaced with explicit statements of who are the intended beneficiaries and intended actors with the power of making choices. 2. An absence of legitimacy - Governance bodies are being proposed without any source of authority. The essence of governance is the ability to say "no" to things that may otherwise be lawful and permissable. Proper governance requires a clear foundation of authority from some well accepted source, or the exercise of authority in a well practiced, uncontested, and beneficial manner for enough time (decades, if not longer). ICANN, again being the model for how things ought not to be done, is floating, like Swift's Laputa ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laputa ), over the internet without any source of authority except its own self say so and in likely contravention to laws in several nations against such self aggrandizements of authority (i.e. laws against anti-competitive practices.) 3. Fragmentation of the net: The net is slowly being fractured into fiefdoms of providers, fiefdoms of protocols, fiefdoms of content (usually along national boundaries). This tendency is increased by anti-spam and packet blocking filters that are rarely reviewed and even more rarely removed: whole parts of the network address space, both of IP address and domain names, have become contaminated and largely useless as a result. 4. Elimination of best-effort transport. Providers are imposing data constrictive mechanisms in order to degrade competition to their own products. This will ultimately result in users being able to obtain adequate service levels only across a single provider. The net will resemble a country in which super highways end at city or country borders and are not interconnected across those boundaries. 4a. The corollary to #4 above is that those who have applications that require end-to-end services, such as conversational VoIP, may find it difficult to obtain the end-to-end packet delivery service quality needed to sustain the application. 5. Critical resource starvation. Already IPv4 addresses are becoming scare and those of us who have blocks of addresses are prevented from redistributing those addresses on a market driven basis. IPv6 addresses, although IPv6 has 2**96 times as much space as IPv4, may prove too expensive or too wrapped in paperwork for them to be available to end users. The net effect (pun intended) can be a lock-in of customers to providers because of the difficulty of obtaining alternate address space, or more likely, bearing the cost of renumbering. (We may also face routing starvation of a sort as the number of destination prefixes reaches, and perhaps exceeds, the capacity of existing routing equipment and the flux of routing change begins to excede the rate at which those changes can be propagated and digested.) Note: IP address policy is an extremely difficult area that, unlike domain names, is filled with real technical concerns and limitations with strong effects on policy. The RIRs have been doing a reasonable job of navigating these waters, but their viewpoint tends to be more heavily focused on provider needs rather than end-user needs. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 01:41:37 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:11:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070906054140.7DB92678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim wrote: > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) > > somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) > > somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) Also one may wonder why so many who thought and opined (judging from their organizational affiliations) that CIR was not important to discuss at the IGF and we shd instead be discussing 'access', till CIR finally came on the agenda despite them, are now keen to be speakers on the CIR issue (or, rather, others are keen on their behalf). Is it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an important area of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to counter some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is afraid of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' openly than through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will make for much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions rather than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a special case that needs to be shielded from public policy. I say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry people and their points of view. Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been suggested, neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons, since McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting them, must be very capable people and should be speaking at 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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; JeanetteHofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > > Wow, McTim, these people can surely speak English! There is (good and > intelligent) life on these fields south of the Equator as well. > > --c.a. > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" > Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 14:53:46 +0300 > Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > > > On 9/5/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > its a good idea to draw speakers from the workshop panels but we > > should > > > not restrict ourselves to this group of people. > > > We need to think about experts for the main session on Critical > > Internet > > > Resources. In addition to suggesting concrete names we should also > > > discuss what kind of experts we would like to see on that panel. > > > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) > > somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) > > somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 02:09:33 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:09:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> Message-ID: On 9/5/07, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 03:19:58PM +0300, > McTim wrote > a message of 23 lines which said: > > > > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > > > > > What's the link between St. Amour and the IETF? > > > > > > > http://isoc.org/standards/ > > > > _ISOC is the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task > > Force (IETF), > > In that case, the representative from IANA should be someone from the > US government. Well ICANN is the "organizational home" of the IANA, so if you want apples for apples.... -- 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 guru at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 02:25:46 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:55:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070906062552.3EBDAA6CD3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Hi Jeanette, Thanks for your response ... That hopefully sets the tone for us to debate real issues and fears and see what we can all do about them. On the first fear: on a undesirable dichotomy. The IGF as Parminder said is the 'only' multi-stakeholder forum, where Governments, inter-gov institutions CS and businesses can come and discuss issues. Most global fora are largely Governmental or inter-Governmental with at least CS having little say (as the recent OOXML debate indicates, business interests manage to have their influence on such processes anyways). Hence to me it makes most sense to discuss CIRs in the IGF. Just because there is a fear that the governance would come under the control of Governments is no reason to accept the current illegitimate, unrepresentative, 'captured by special interests' (these are strong words, but I believe, entirely true) governance structures. CS has a role to equally resist the current structures as any Government eagerness to dominate and shut others out (one of the reasons why Parminder protested against a danger of making a precedence of having the host Government co-chair the IGF). Second fear - "A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in Internet Governance." This does seems a bit patronising. As a person from the developing world, I can see that 'having access', while extremely important, is no reason for me/ my constituency to have no stake in the processes of determining the nature of the information society. I recollect the paper 'cakes for the north, crumbs for the south' that couple of my colleagues in ITfC had written around the WSIS PC3. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:GMyJESGurcAJ:www.itforchange.net/WSIS/gi s/papers/anita-gurumurthy-political-economy.doc+cakes+for+the+north,+crumbs+ for+the+south&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=in . Access is itself not independent of the 'control' or 'influence' that we can have on the process of goveranance. To give a simple parallel, for access to cheap / reasonably priced HIV AIDS drugs, it is quite essential to have some influence over the patent/IP processes. If Brazil and some other developing countries had not resisted and adopted generic drug making, which is clearly an IP Governance act, access to drugs would have been not possible for most of the people of these countries. I am sure the French royalists had similar views - that the common people in France only wanted mundane material things in life and were not concerned with 'democracy' issues as equality or liberty. IMO, the two are not independent issues, if anything - power/empowerment is essential to meaningfully access and use resources. It is easier to understand why people from the US/EU/First world feel more comfortable with USG dominance, in a sense they are part of that world. To expect the rest of the world will also see it in the same light suggests that the geo-political interests of all countries / peoples are similar. While vision of a 'people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society' can be common, the strategies and interests are likely to conflict. As I see it, the current structures benefit a minority and large majority of people have no role to play at all. We cannot ignore the fact that for many of such groups, their Governments are currently the only representatives in this space. This should not be construed to defend any undemocratic act of any of these or any other Governments. Recognising this and showing willingness to negotiate, specially on the part of those who or whose interests currently dominate, is a pre-requisite to a democratic, multi-stakeholder IG. I think the IGF is a real opportunity to build such a society and putting things under the carpet will not get us anywhere ... Atleast not those, at who currently only crumbs get thrown.... I do hope more people will come onto this list and share their thoughts ... It should also help make the debates in Rio sharper and real. Guru _____________ Gurumurthy K IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net | A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he likes.~Thomas Huxley~ -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' Hi Parminder, judging from what I heard the last 3 days in Geneva what people find threatening are basically two things. 1. An ideological deadlock resulting from a polarizing discussion that narrows down potential options for future governance models to exactly two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). We all know from WSIS that dichotomic debates don't lead anywhere because none of the participants seems willing to change political preferences. 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in Internet Governance. I am sure there are lots of other reasons why people prefer not to discuss critical internet resources. But the two reasons mentioned above are in my view already important enough to take them seriously. jeanette Parminder wrote: > Carrying on from my own email > >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these >> issues, MAG members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as >> Anriette observed in her statement they should have focused more on >> listening), were >> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than >> other sessions >> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF >> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC >> could only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. >> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) >> >> Parminder > > Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on > trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on CIRs.... > So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should > be treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and > frankly, I could not really understand even one argument well..... It > may be my ignorance and inaptitude but they seem to be putting some > meaningless argument or other to push this very illogical thing that a > CIR main session should be different (basically ineffectual). > > Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a > pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related > proposals > >> finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the >> Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and >> democracy in the internal procedures of the IGF. > > I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on > what is it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss > real issues, perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy arguments. > The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported > more transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts > with stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than > masquerading them in arguments that look quite untenable. > > The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that > threatens the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why? > > Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and > now when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality. > > Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué > or any such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda > for the IGF look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do, > what are the REAL fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other > work it needs to do. But then many (not all) who now oppose > recommendation have not initially been enthusiastic about the IGF as a > public policy discussion space at all (remember the last phase of the > WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of IGF getting unable to do its > basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the fear that governments > will capture recommendation-making activity. I don’t see how this can > happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may be wrong on this, and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad' > scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space > where non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy > recommendations. > > The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able > to agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why > kill the first and the only multistakeholder global policy > recommendation giving body? > > Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side > may realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other > may find that certain fears may not be so justified. > > It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself, > since quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation >> >> >> Hi Jeanette >> >> I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that >> members may want raised and myself presented some views in how things >> stood vis a vis preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but >> there has been too much silence on the IGC lately, a situation which >> despite some efforts by me and some others did not change much. For >> instance, we need discussions on the issue of the UN communiqué >> raising issues of rotation, transparency etc in IGF and MAG, and of >> giving the issue new consideration after Rio. Bertrand made the very >> useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on giving new >> definitions and recommendations etc... >> >> I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken forward... >> >> I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd >> in Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some >> kind of statement could be read out, after collectively determining >> that it is in consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded... >> >> On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very >> well - that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues >> of rotation of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders >> themselves, and of the governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and >> some others supported the statement. And also added the point of >> transparency of MAG and flow of information and gave some concrete >> suggestion.. I have a feeling that the suggestion for a meeting >> report of the closed sessions may be accepted since Nitin responded >> quite well to it. This will also specifically address the concern >> raised in the UN SG's communiqué. >> >> I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been >> adopted as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some >> activity on the IGC prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to >> those present to judge the 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a >> statement 'on their feet'. In this case, as an additional factor >> which worked against a pre-prepared statement, the agenda for the >> consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am right)... >> >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these >> issues, MAG members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as >> Anriette observed in her statement they should have focused more on >> listening), were >> >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than >> other sessions >> >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF >> >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC >> could only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. >> >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) >> >> Parminder > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> IT for Change, Bangalore >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >> www.ITforChange.net >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation >>> >>> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. >>> While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on >>> the agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only >>> contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a >>> few individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the >>> discussion on the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also >>> makes the role of cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We >>> have less papers and interventions to refer to in the advisory group >>> meeting than other stakeholders. >>> jeanette >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 03:15:26 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:15:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070906062552.3EBDAA6CD3@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <20070906062552.3EBDAA6CD3@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070906071526.GA14134@nic.fr> On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:55:46AM +0530, Guru at ITfC wrote a message of 343 lines which said: > I am sure the French royalists had similar views - that the common > people in France only wanted mundane material things in life and > were not concerned with 'democracy' issues as equality or liberty. You can write it in the present tense. Previous French president Jacques Chirac declared publically several times (about allied dictatorships like Tunisia) that people in the South were not interested by democracy or other luxuries but only by basic physical needs. Otherwise, I 100 % agree with you. When the allocation of IP addresses mean that a student in an university in Africa has, in average, 1/1000 of an IP address, compared to 2 or 3 IP addresses for a student in the North, you can see that access is also a governance problem. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Sep 6 03:46:39 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:46:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070906074639.GB14134@nic.fr> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:32:08PM +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote a message of 244 lines which said: > exactly two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). You mean "intergovernmental (ITU) versus monogouvernemental (ICANN)" ? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 03:59:47 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:29:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] opening remarks of the co-chair -- IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DD6D33.20304@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070906075949.45288678FA@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi Carlos I continue to remain skeptical of this move of getting a governmental co-chair... and the arguments and justifications around it are a little confusing. Nitin, while calling the new co-chair as rep of the Brazilian people and not the government, seemed to insist on the process-facilitation function (for the actual meeting) of the host government acting as the co-chair. And so did many other 'official' versions of what this co-chair is about.. However, note the comment by Hadil Vianna below > In this context, we welcome the UN Secretary-General decision to > invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process. The idea of having > the Host Country as co-chair is a step further in gradually involving > the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive > standpoint. I am not sure what does 'from a substantive standpoint' mean, though it is prefaced by 'conduct of the meeting'. I may be being over-cautious here, and the statement may mean nothing other than facilitating the actual conduct of the meeting, and not IGF's substantive content, and future substantive directions. As stated often, I am for the IGF to grow stronger from a substantive point of view, and of closer involvement of all stakeholders to do this, but I do not at all like to see nomination of a governmental co-chair in that light... Also later Hadil Vianna says >Although > we all acknowledge the competent work of Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and > his small but efficient staff, we cannot expect that they will come > out with magical solutions to all organizational questions raised > along the preparations for the Rio de Janeiro meeting and the > forthcoming IGF editions. The answers to some of these questions > depend, basically, on policy decision-making. I am therefore convinced > that the work of a co-chair can add value to our activities. Here again the co-chairship seems to have a greater substantive agenda than the host country helping with logistic issues. What kind of 'policy-decision making' exactly is Hadil Vianna referring to. I wont normally see logistic related decisions as policy decisions, but I may not be reading the whole thing right... Carlos, can you please share your understanding of these statements. Thanks. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 8:06 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] opening remarks of the co-chair -- IGF public > consultation > > The opening remarks by Hadil Vianna yesterday, reproduced below, at the > open consultation prior to the MAG meeting help clarify the whys and > hows of co-chairing for the IGF Rio meeting. > > --c.a. > > Co-chair Desai, distinguished delegates, > > First of all, allow me to express my most sincere satisfaction in > co-chairing these open consultations in preparation for the 2nd. IGF, > in Rio de Janeiro. As representative of the host country, I feel > honoured to participate in these works. I can assure you that Brazil > is willing to collaborate closely with the United Nations, > Governments, civil society and the private sector to ensure that the > second IGF will be a successful event. > > I would like to take this opportunity to stress that, in my country, > issues related to Internet Governance are taken up by the Internet > Steering Committee (CGI.br), which, like the IGF, includes > representation from all stakeholders. In fact, CGI.br, that is > strongly represented in these consultations, is offering full support > to the preparations for the 2nd IGF. > > I would also like to take this opportunity to sincerely commend Mr. > Desai's skillful conduct of this process and his active contribution > to the implementation of the IGF mandate. His straightforward style > and able guidance have been decisive to the important achievements of > the 1st IGF and to the preparations for the 2nd. In this regard, I > consider important to highlight that the Athens meeting proved to be > a successful event and laid the grounds for the important work yet to > be done towards the full implementation of the IGF mandate. > > I am aware of the general expectation that the Rio meeting will > represent one step ahead in the incremental IGF process, in accordance > with its mandate as contained in the Tunis Agenda. > > In this context, we welcome the UN Secretary-General decision to > invite Brazil to co-chair this preparatory process. The idea of having > the Host Country as co-chair is a step further in gradually involving > the stakeholders in the conduct of the meeting from a substantive > standpoint. I accepted this task in good faith and am willing to > contribute to my best in order to meet all stakeholders´ expectations > with regard to the 2nd IGF meeting in Rio de Janeiro. > > We all are well aware that the IGF cannot be seen as a traditional > UN-style Conference. Its format is in the forefront of multilateral > policy-making and may set precedents for a renewed, upgraded style of > multilateral conferences, therefore contributing to the evolution of > the concept of global governance, in an open, inclusive and > representative environment, with the participation of all > stakeholders. > > As we are touching unchartered grounds, we need to be conscious of the > many challenges to be faced. The tools usually available for > organizing, convening and conducting multilateral events are not > automatically applicable to this new scenario we are building. Such > challenges require from us creativity and innovation with regard to > the format as well as to the substance of IGF discussions. > > I understand that one of these challenges refers to the need for > balanced regional representation, according to the Tunis mandate. I am > referring not only to Government participation, but to other > stakeholders as well, in particular from the developing world. > > At this stage, it is worth recalling the UN Secretary-General mandate > set forth at the Tunis Agenda. He was asked to convene the IGF and > encouraged to (and I quote) "examine a range of options for the > convening of the Forum, taking into consideration the proven > competencies of all stakeholders in Internet governance and the need > to ensure their full involvement" (end of quotation). > > This mandate clearly entails the need of a collective work. Although > we all acknowledge the competent work of Mr. Desai, Mr. Kummer and > his small but efficient staff, we cannot expect that they will come > out with magical solutions to all organizational questions raised > along the preparations for the Rio de Janeiro meeting and the > forthcoming IGF editions. The answers to some of these questions > depend, basically, on policy decision-making. I am therefore convinced > that the work of a co-chair can add value to our activities. > > My intention is to work closely with Mr. Desai, the secretariat and > the Advisory Group, in conducting the preparations for the IGF in Rio > de Janeiro. I invite you all to join us in this innovative and > challenging work. That is not supposed to be a Brazilian isolated > task, nor is it a UN task. It is a task that requires commitment and > participation from all stakeholders, with open, unprejudiced minds. I > count on your support and contributions to make sure that the Rio > meeting will be a success, for the benefit of the international debate > on Internet 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Sep 6 04:09:39 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:09:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <20070906054140.7DB92678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070906054140.7DB92678C4@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <3007A280-422A-4801-A181-AA41E2D399F4@psg.com> Hi, I think one of the things people fear, and something I myself fear in all sorts of venues, is the effects of both innocently inaccurate information and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). So in any endeavor there may be people who believe that a specific topic does not belong on an agenda. however, once it is put on the the agenda, they want to make sure that those who understand the topic are properly represented (btw, no endorsement of any proposed speaker on my part is intended). I don't think it is necessary to presume a belief of conspiracy nor is it necessary to be involved in one. in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding both technology and policy. and, again in my view, there as as many of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as there are who don't understand policy. a. On 6 sep 2007, at 07.41, Parminder wrote: > s it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an > important area > of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to > counter > some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open > discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is > afraid > of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' > openly than > through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will > make for > much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions > rather > than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a > special case > that needs to be shielded from public policy. > > I say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry > people > and their points of view. > > Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been suggested, > neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons, since > McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting > them, must > be very capable people and should be speaking at the IGF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 04:11:49 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:11:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: On 9/6/07, Parminder wrote: > > McTim wrote: > > > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) > > > somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) > > > somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) > > > somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) > > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) > > > somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) > > > Also one may wonder why so many who thought and opined (judging from their > organizational affiliations) that CIR was not important to discuss at the > IGF and we shd instead be discussing 'access', Probably because it's more important? till CIR finally came on the > agenda despite them, are now keen to be speakers on the CIR issue (or, > rather, others are keen on their behalf). now it's on the agenda, I assumed that usefulness of speakers would be directly related to their knowledge and experience in these areas. Carlos, I can certainly suggest folk from south of the Equator if needed, since I live ON the Equator, I see folk from North and South. > > Is it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an important area > of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to counter > some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open > discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is afraid > of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' openly than > through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will make for > much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions rather > than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a special case > that needs to be shielded from public policy. > I have never been less than open in sharing my views. At the risk of boring the list again, they include: 1) CIRs do not include names (with the exception of .arpa) 2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner. If anyone wants to participate in these discussions and policy deliberations, they can. 3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to me. In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join the Internet community 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 04:35:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:05:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070906071526.GA14134@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> I must though mention (in relation to my earlier email on Brazilian co-chair) that I agree with the Brazilian position stated at the May consultations and re-stated in September consultations that instead of the present situation where all authority and power is vested in the UN Secy General, and the MAG merely advises him, it is better to move towards a more empowered IGF committee or something (this is not necessarily connected to IGF's recommendation giving possibilities, which can be discussed separately, and not also to a 3 or 4 part bureau) that exercises authority on its own behalf. We should be happy to have a multistakeholder body exercise this authority rather than the UN Sect General and the connected bureaucracy. I don't see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN Secy General. Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to do so? Why our exaggerated fears of a strong IGF more important that the possibility of CS being an equal part of a substantive and self governing global governance body? However, I won't like to see governmental co-chairship of MAG as a process towards such substantive strengthening. I prefer a UN Sec Gen nominated chair. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 05:00:41 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:00:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd0709060200v5190640esa022013367a3f683@mail.gmail.com> On 9/5/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi, > > its a good idea to draw speakers from the workshop panels but we should > not restrict ourselves to this group of people. Jeanette is absolutely right. I wrote "in priority" in my remark on drawing introductory speakers from the corresponding workshops. It is in no way the exclusive source, just a good base to start with. Best Bertrand Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > At the risk of repeating myself, couldn't the speakers in the main > > sessions be drawn in priority from the speakers who will participate in > > the workshops related to the corresponding track ? Workshop organizers > > could play a role in suggesting some of their speakers to report to the > > main session. > > > > Speakers in the main session would therefore be mostly introducing > > discussion and opening a broader debate in the main session, drawing on > > the discussions in the workshops held before or to be held afterwards. > > > > Main advantages : it engages and rewards organizers of workshops, giving > > them a say in the selection of speakers; it valorizes the most > > interesting workshop speakers; it establishes a natural linkage between > > the workshops and the related main session; last but not least, we are > > more or less sure that these people have already planned to be there, > > which is not the case for the great people we might think of but who do > > not have yet heard of the IGF or have not indicated their intention to > > come. > > > > My two cents. > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 6 05:26:30 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:26:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46DFC7C6.8020202@wzb.eu> Hi, at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this protection. Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any decision-making authority for civil society in binding international policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we simply lack legitimacy to do so. jeanette Parminder wrote: > > I must though mention (in relation to my earlier email on Brazilian > co-chair) that I agree with the Brazilian position stated at the May > consultations and re-stated in September consultations that instead of > the present situation where all authority and power is vested in the UN > Secy General, and the MAG merely advises him, it is better to move > towards a more empowered IGF committee or something (this is not > necessarily connected to IGF's recommendation giving possibilities, > which can be discussed separately, and not also to a 3 or 4 part bureau) > that exercises authority on its own behalf. We should be happy to have a > multistakeholder body exercise this authority rather than the UN Sect > General and the connected bureaucracy. > > I don’t see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. > What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a > multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN > Secy General. Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in > global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to > do so? > > Why our exaggerated fears of a strong IGF more important that the > possibility of CS being an equal part of a substantive and self > governing global governance body? > > However, I won’t like to see governmental co-chairship of MAG as a > process towards such substantive strengthening. I prefer a UN Sec Gen > nominated chair. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 6 05:29:01 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:29:01 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' References: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D90A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here are some brief comments: I would be very carefully to move too quickly to institutionalize the MAG. If it comes to buerocracy we should be aware that CS would probably not the winner of a redistribution of competences. I would prefer to go slowly bottom up and to develop innovative concepts for the 2008/2009 when the whole process is reconsidered and probably will be restablished in 2010. We should not forget that the IGF (like EC) was the result of a compromise and the recognition that a "solution" of open issues was out of reach in 2005. All sides agreed to buy some time and to wait. We should fill this time with more creative debates that with "power plays" on a redistribution of functions. This includes that the CS members of the MAG should are a. more active and b. report back to the caucus as much as possible. BTW, the MAG is not yet a really body like the WGIG was. Also the debate this week was not really focsed and very burocratic. It promoited a little bit the understanding of the main issues related to the five themes, which will be reflected in the new paper (and where CS people made a good contributions and - more kmportant - where heard and treated as equals. One reason for the uncertainty is is that nobody has really a strategy how to fill this new space and how to develop the IGF into a "new animal" of internaitonal relations. This is indeed an experimental phase and a lot of things can be developed better more silently bottom up as long our group knows what it wants.So a content and strategy discussion would be more helpful than the call for fixing institutional rights and duties in a power body. With regard to the Co-Chair I think it is important to recognize that the Brazilian Co-Chair does not represent the Brazilian government but the host country. This is for some people probably something like hair splitting but we shuld not understimate the interesting diplomatic difference. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Do 06.09.2007 10:35 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' I must though mention (in relation to my earlier email on Brazilian co-chair) that I agree with the Brazilian position stated at the May consultations and re-stated in September consultations that instead of the present situation where all authority and power is vested in the UN Secy General, and the MAG merely advises him, it is better to move towards a more empowered IGF committee or something (this is not necessarily connected to IGF's recommendation giving possibilities, which can be discussed separately, and not also to a 3 or 4 part bureau) that exercises authority on its own behalf. We should be happy to have a multistakeholder body exercise this authority rather than the UN Sect General and the connected bureaucracy. I don't see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN Secy General. Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to do so? Why our exaggerated fears of a strong IGF more important that the possibility of CS being an equal part of a substantive and self governing global governance body? However, I won't like to see governmental co-chairship of MAG as a process towards such substantive strengthening. I prefer a UN Sec Gen nominated chair. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Thu Sep 6 05:51:11 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:51:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46DFCD8F.5020505@Malcolm.id.au> Parminder wrote: > I don’t see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. > What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a > multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN > Secy General. Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in > global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to > do so? Actually I have taken a view on it. From my thesis (omitting citations): > Almost by definition, it is illegitimate for the United Nations thus > to exercise leadership of a multi-stakeholder governance network, > because the UN remains fundamentally an intergovernmental > organisation, which allows for only limited participation in certain > of its activities by civil society and the private sector. It is for > the same reason that it was argued above that the Secretariat should > be limited to performing technical roles. > > But an additional reason for excluding the UN from maintaining > hierarchical control over the Advisory Group is that the Tunis Agenda > itself appears to limit the Secretary-General’s role to the > establishment of that group, providing no warrant for the continuing > role that he has assumed. The only ongoing roles provided for the > Secretary-General by the Tunis Agenda are to periodically report back > upon the IGF’s progress to the General Assembly, and to re-assess > the IGF’s mandate following its fifth meeting. > > Therefore, reform of the Advisory Group is necessary. The most > pressing reforms are twofold. First, like the Secretariat, it must be > appointed by multi-stakeholder, democratic means, though as also > noted in respect of the Secretariat, this implies a parallel reform > that would provide the means for the stakeholder groups each to > nominate or appoint their own representatives to smaller committees > of the IGF. Whilst this reform is yet to be discussed in detail, it > would hardly be much of an innovation, as it was in like manner that > civil society’s representatives were appointed to WGIG. > > The second required reform is not so much one for the Advisory Group, > as one that the limitations of the Advisory Group make necessary. It > is the need for another body to take up functions that exceed the > mandate of the Advisory Group and Secretariat. Some of these are > functions that they have taken upon themselves regardless of this > being in excess of their mandate; such as setting the structure and > working methods of the IGF. Others are functions that they have not > attempted to address at all, such as the facilitation of the > development of recommendations, as Brazil emphasised during the May > 2007 open consultations in pressing for the establishment of an IGF > bureau. That URL again... http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis. -- 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 $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 06:21:48 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 11:21:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> In relation to this comment from, I think, McTim: > In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", > that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that > they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, > there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join > the Internet community fora. We're talking about ICANN of course. Can I just say from my position as general manager of public participation that ICANN is indeed open and I am doing all I can to make it so that participation by all is easy, simple and, most importantly, effective. I am beefing up the public comment process (http://www.icann.org/public_comment/); participation in meetings is possible in person or online; what ICANN is doing and will be doing is compiled and released in the form of newsletters (there will be a big, long and slightly boring newsletter out hopefully this week that covers each policy point in term, with full links). ICANN is increasingly using online surveys to improve and simplify feedback. I will run one very soon that asks the community what info they want and how they want it. There is an ICANN participation site (http://public.icann.org/) where you are actively encouraged to put up your thoughts - it is an open and highly interactive community site specially designed to raise and thrash out issues. Responses on the public participation site and to the ICANN blog are read and I always do my best to get answers to people that raise useful questions. The system is wide open for participation. And this is the most important part -- the decisions are made by those that turn up. If people do participate and then claim they are being ignored or dealt with unfairly, I will take that very seriously and sort the situation out. But I've not see even a whisper of that. At this very moment, three of the biggest areas of complaint have public comment periods open on them: domain tasting; changes to the RAA to sort out the domain registering system; and reform of the Nominating Committee. These are the mechanisms by which you can have real and lasting change on the way this part of the Internet works. Time spent arguing for a fantasy new body to be developed to deal with these issues, in the mistaken belief that somehow a new solution will work any better, is to my mind a waste of time and energy. Why not consider spending just a little of that time interacting in a meaningful way with the system that actually will make these decisions, with or without you? Incidentally, do we know if the MAG agreed to make minutes of its meetings public? Kieren ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 06:36:40 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 13:36:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: On 9/6/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: > > In relation to this comment from, I think, McTim: > > > In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", > > that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that > > they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, > > there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join > > the Internet community fora. > > > We're talking about ICANN of course. > in part. IETF isn't an ICANN process. The RIR communities stand on their own, but can be considered "ICANN processes", although ICANN has nothing to do with numbering policy, (except if a global policy is needed) IANA IPv6 allocations to RIRs springs to mind as an example. Thanks for your efforts, I hope they will bear fruit. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 08:11:10 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:11:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D90A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D90A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <954259bd0709060511r3be80e54u41737c21e0247fb7@mail.gmail.com> On 9/6/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > With regard to the Co-Chair I think it is important to recognize that the > Brazilian Co-Chair does not represent the Brazilian government but the host > country. This is for some people probably something like hair splitting but > we shuld not understimate the interesting diplomatic difference. > For list members' information, I copy hereunder a comment I officially made in the open consultations on Monday regarding that point : I note with great interest, without getting into details, the interesting distinction that our chair Nitin has introduced about the co-chair being the representative of the country, rather than thegovernment. I still note that, nonetheless, the country representative is designated by the government in the Brazil situation. So it's an interesting two layers of things. And it's interesting to take into account the notion that sometimes governments can designate for certain functions people who are not government officials. -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at acm.org Thu Sep 6 11:19:54 2007 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 17:19:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updates to IGF web page Message-ID: <75BDA331-5438-4E1B-AE5F-B2918B5D0A92@acm.org> hi, There is an update to the IGF page. Specifically it includes: - Updated program - http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/ DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf - Report on AG meeting - http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG. 05.09.07.rtf Note on the report - it includes a link to 2 papers submitted by Mr Everton Lucero in his role as an adviser to the Host Country Co-Chair. a. in my role as occasional consultant to the IGF secretariat ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Sep 6 11:21:02 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:21:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] summary of MAG meeting and new draft program Message-ID: <46E01ADE.3000602@wzb.eu> Hi, the secretariat has published on its website a summary of the meeting: http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG.05.09.07.rtf There is also a new draft program outline for the rio meeting available: http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 12:13:21 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:13:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? Message-ID: Avri, As a veteran techno policy player myself, pardon me if I remain skeptical of the behind the scenes theater aspect of this discussion. We're talking about what we are asked not to talk about at IGF, or that which only certain people are able to speak to? Is it ICANN's role in critical Internet resource management which must not be named? Or is it the man or woman behind the curtain at USG? (I do agree there is mainly FUD behind and in front of the curtain by the way.) Yes there is a fair amount of ignorance, on the technical and policy sides, in both directions - partially the result of computer scientists mistaking themselves for political scientists way back when. And yeah ok, vice versa : ) So I guess on that point we agree. But the argument that someone has a veto over what is talked about, by whom, on any subject at IGF, kind of violates the first principle of IGF as a multistakeholder discussions forum, yes? Certainly there is a need for broad(-er) education in the net's inner workings, of more people than have been involved in the past, that's clearly one of the key aspects of Internet governance and one of the main purposes of workshops and discussions at IGF, yes? And sure, Kieren's call/invite for more people to jump into ICANN is welcome, and is a way for people to have their voices heard on specific issues - presuming they have the knowledge and time to engage at that level. But we're still as noted by Wolfgang, Bertrand, and others in this 'new architecture' definition and development phase for Internet governance, and Internet governance institutions. And I don;t share jeremy's conclusions that the UN is not a legitimate player here themselves. Still it's not enough to say 'come to ICANN and your voice will be heard.' We're talking at present about going to IGF and not having pre-censored conversations. If we do that then someone's ulterior motive in neutering IGF - a discussion forum fobidden to have conversations - will have been served. Why not just talk about Bertrand's and Adam's preferred topic, of whom should be recommended to speak on which topic? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> avri at psg.com 9/6/2007 4:09 AM >>> Hi, I think one of the things people fear, and something I myself fear in all sorts of venues, is the effects of both innocently inaccurate information and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). So in any endeavor there may be people who believe that a specific topic does not belong on an agenda. however, once it is put on the the agenda, they want to make sure that those who understand the topic are properly represented (btw, no endorsement of any proposed speaker on my part is intended). I don't think it is necessary to presume a belief of conspiracy nor is it necessary to be involved in one. in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding both technology and policy. and, again in my view, there as as many of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as there are who don't understand policy. a. On 6 sep 2007, at 07.41, Parminder wrote: > s it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an > important area > of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to > counter > some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open > discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is > afraid > of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' > openly than > through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will > make for > much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions > rather > than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a > special case > that needs to be shielded from public policy. > > I say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry > people > and their points of view. > > Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been suggested, > neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons, since > McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting > them, must > be very capable people and should be speaking at the IGF. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 6 12:42:25 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Private Equity Acquisitions in Media and Telecom: CITI meeting September 28, 2007 Message-ID: Private Equity Acquisitions in Media and Telecom: Implications for Investing, Valuations, and Public Policy Event: September 28, 2007 Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) Columbia Business School Ref: http://www.citi.columbia.edu/events/privateequityandmedia.htm - Today, a second wave of media and telecom privatization is sweeping the world, this time without much public notice. In the past year or two, private equity firms have acquired major media and communications companies. These include Clear Channel, MGM, Univision, and PanAmSat in America; VNU/Nielsen in the Netherlands; TDC in Denmark; Eircom in Ireland; ProSiebenSat in Germany, and SBS in Luxembourg. Private equity has been in the ascendancy, buoyed by cheap debt, rising equity prices, and high liquidity. In 2006, almost a quarter of all M&As was financed in that way, with over 2,500 deals worth $655 billion worldwide. Talent has flocked to PE firms, from ex-CEOs to presidents, prime ministers, and regulators. Major business opportunities exist. This trend has raised questions of financial and policy analysis. There are additional considerations for media and communication firms. For example, PE may be less likely to undertake major upgrades of communications media infrastructure. These business and policy issues will be the subject of CITI's conference. - Private equity is a problem for public media By Eli Noam Published: February 19 2007 When many telecommunications and television networks were privatised in the 1980s, there was much public debate. Today, a second wave of media privatisation is sweeping the world, this time without much public notice. It is the acquisition by private equity partnerships of stock market-traded �public� media companies. In the past year or two, private equity firms have acquired big media and communications companies. These include Clear Channel, MGM, Univision and PanamSat in the US; VNU in the Netherlands; national telecom carriers Eircom and TDC in Ireland and Denmark; television companies ProSiebenSat in Germany and SBS in Luxembourg. Other companies, such as -Vivendi, EMI and parts of the Tribune Co, have been circled by private equity firms. Still others, such as Bertelsmann and Cox, were taken fully private by their majority shareholders. Private equity has been in the ascendancy, buoyed by cheap debt, rising equity prices and high liquidity. In 2006, almost a quarter of all mergers and acquisitions were financed that way. This trend has raised questions. Many private equity deals are fuelled by a desire to flee closer regulation and disclosure requirements of public companies. This reduces the transparency of the economy, even as it may make some companies more efficient. There are additional considerations for media companies. On the positive side, private equity deals often lead to a break-up of media conglomeratesto reduce debt that paid for the acquisition. Thus, Clear Channel, poster boy for media concentration, isselling off almost half of its 1,100 radio stations. On the negative side, the same cost-cutting has impacts on newsrooms, film budgets and re-search and development. Unlike start-up venture capital, this kind of private equity is basically conservative in its search for cash flows to meet debt payments and position the company for resale. It is also short-term orientated and unlikely to undertake big upgrades of communications infrastructure that have long-term benefits for the economy. Private equity also changes the nature of media ownership. Public attention has centred on moguls such as Rupert Murdoch and Sumner Redstone, Viacom chairman. In reality, most media companies have been majority owned by institutional investors*. Just the top 10 of these institutions, such as Fidelity, together own more than 20 per cent of the 20 largest US media companies. But they rarely interferewith managers beyond pressure to keep the stock price up. Management is accountable to all shareholders and scrutinised by the public, investment analysts and the press. But a private equity fund�s management company controls the acquired media company fully and installs management with tough performance mandates. Increasingly, private equity fund partners play a hands-on operational role beyond the merely financial. In contrast to public institutional funds, the private equity fund is limited by law and strategy to deep-pocket investors whose identities are not disclosed. The funds keep a low profile. For example, Thomas H. Lee Partners, a $20bn (�10.2bn) Boston private equity firm that has acquired singly or in partnerships the media companies Clear Channel, Univision, VNU, Houghton Mifflin and Warner Music, does not appear to maintain a website. Little information is available to the press. Securities analysts stop following the stock. Small investors and activists have no public shareholder meeting to probe management.Governments cannot evaluate the soundness of companies that may provide essential national infrastructure. All this raises questions about openness, transparency and control. In open societies large media holdings must be in the open. Direct regulation by government of media operations is undesirable. But disclosure is another matter. For example, the managing owners and substantial investors in media companies that hold government licences or use favourable postal rates for press mailings should be part of the public record, as should their nationality and the debt burden put on essential network infrastructure. The role of media is to inform and shine light; their own structures cannot be secretive. Otherwise accountability becomes impossible, suspicions abound and the credibility of all media will suffer. * Eli M. Noam, Media Ownership and Concentration in America, Oxford University Press, forthcoming The writer is professor of finance and economics at Columbia University Financial Times Art.: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/50ca3cb0-c01e-11db-995a-000b5df10621.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 6 12:42:46 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 01:42:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of MAG meeting and new draft program In-Reply-To: <46E01ADE.3000602@wzb.eu> References: <46E01ADE.3000602@wzb.eu> Message-ID: MAG spent the first 90 minutes on Tuesday discussing transparency issues, and the first outcome is the reports Jeanette mentions. In the future publish agendas in advance. Is this an improvement, what more would you like to see? Best, Adam At 5:21 PM +0200 9/6/07, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Hi, > >the secretariat has published on its website a summary of the meeting: > >http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG.05.09.07.rtf > >There is also a new draft program outline for the rio meeting available: > >http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf > >jeanette > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 12:49:36 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:49:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Updates to IGF web page In-Reply-To: <75BDA331-5438-4E1B-AE5F-B2918B5D0A92@acm.org> References: <75BDA331-5438-4E1B-AE5F-B2918B5D0A92@acm.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0709060949k13a46ad2x7b1e613c9fed6459@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Avri. As far as I am concerned, the Links to Everton's papers are not accessible (ie i cannot open them). is it my machine ? Best Bertrand On 9/6/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > There is an update to the IGF page. Specifically it includes: > > - Updated program - http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/ > DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf > > - Report on AG meeting - http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG. > 05.09.07.rtf > > Note on the report - it includes a link to 2 papers submitted by Mr > Everton Lucero in > his role as an adviser to the Host Country Co-Chair. > > a. > in my role as occasional consultant to the IGF secretariat > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Thu Sep 6 12:55:18 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:55:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D2EE69E-D56A-46A0-A755-F4B6E97A468D@psg.com> Hi, huh? I think I am confused by your message. Certainly my note had nothing to do with people not being allowed to speak. Though certainly for myself i hope i can avoid speaking when i don't know what i am talking about. but that is beside the point. My note had to do with why, after not wanting a subject on the table, people might want to speak to the topic when it was put on the table. It did not really try to address why they would not want it on the table. But rather that once the subject was on the table they would want to speak to make their view of the technical reality and the constraints imposed by technical reality were adequately and accurately covered. Just as one of the political scientists would want to make sure their theories were accurately represented. In terms of ICANN, it is understandable that people want to discuss it. It is also understandable that it should not be the only thing people talk about. I personally don't think there should be a topic veto, and I don't really hear anyone else suggesting a veto. I hear people talking about someone else imposing a veto, but i don't hear anyone actually imposing a veto. at least not about ICANN i am sure there are kinds of conversations we could arrested for, but they are not ICANN or IGF conversations. And I actually thought i was talking about Adam's favorite subject in a meta sort of way. I.e. i was trying to explain why i thought people who were against a topic being discussed might want to be one of the disputants if it was discussed. As for Bertrand's subjects, always happy to discuss those at great length. a. On 6 sep 2007, at 18.13, Lee McKnight wrote: > Avri, > > As a veteran techno policy player myself, pardon me if I remain > skeptical of the behind the scenes theater aspect of this discussion. > > We're talking about what we are asked not to talk about at IGF, or > that > which only certain people are able to speak to? > > Is it ICANN's role in critical Internet resource management which must > not be named? > > Or is it the man or woman behind the curtain at USG? (I do agree > there > is mainly FUD behind and in front of the curtain by the way.) Yes > there > is a fair amount of ignorance, on the technical and policy sides, in > both directions - partially the result of computer scientists > mistaking > themselves for political scientists way back when. And yeah ok, vice > versa : ) So I guess on that point we agree. > > But the argument that someone has a veto over what is talked about, by > whom, on any subject at IGF, kind of violates the first principle > of IGF > as a multistakeholder discussions forum, yes? > > Certainly there is a need for broad(-er) education in the net's inner > workings, of more people than have been involved in the past, that's > clearly one of the key aspects of Internet governance and one of the > main purposes of workshops and discussions at IGF, yes? And sure, > Kieren's call/invite for more people to jump into ICANN is welcome, > and > is a way for people to have their voices heard on specific issues - > presuming they have the knowledge and time to engage at that level. > > But we're still as noted by Wolfgang, Bertrand, and others in this > 'new > architecture' definition and development phase for Internet > governance, > and Internet governance institutions. And I don;t share jeremy's > conclusions that the UN is not a legitimate player here themselves. > > Still it's not enough to say 'come to ICANN and your voice will be > heard.' We're talking at present about going to IGF and not having > pre-censored conversations. If we do that then someone's ulterior > motive in neutering IGF - a discussion forum fobidden to have > conversations - will have been served. > > Why not just talk about Bertrand's and Adam's preferred topic, of whom > should be recommended to speak on which topic? > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> avri at psg.com 9/6/2007 4:09 AM >>> > Hi, > > I think one of the things people fear, and something I myself > fear in all sorts of venues, is the effects of both innocently > inaccurate information and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). > > So in any endeavor there may be people who believe that a specific > topic does not belong on an agenda. however, once it is put on the > the agenda, they want to make sure that those who understand the > topic are properly represented (btw, no endorsement of any proposed > speaker on my part is intended). I don't think it is > necessary to presume a belief of conspiracy nor is it necessary > to be involved in one. > > in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since > it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding > both technology and policy. and, again in my view, there as as many > of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as > there are who don't understand policy. > > a. > > > > On 6 sep 2007, at 07.41, Parminder wrote: > >> s it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an >> important area >> of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to >> counter >> some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of > open >> discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is > >> afraid >> of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' >> openly than >> through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will > >> make for >> much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions >> rather >> than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a >> special case >> that needs to be shielded from public policy. >> >> I say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry > >> people >> and their points of view. >> >> Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been > suggested, >> neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons, > since >> McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting >> them, must >> be very capable people and should be speaking at the IGF. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 13:33:34 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 23:03:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <3007A280-422A-4801-A181-AA41E2D399F4@psg.com> Message-ID: <20070906173340.C2975678E6@smtp1.electricembers.net> >in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since > it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding > both technology and policy. and, again in my view, there as as many > of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as > there are who don't understand policy. This is true. But since policy in such an important area as the Internet remains important, what do you think we should do? The balance, as you say is needed, and therefore which way we move will depend on where we stand. Is it not true that CIR related polices is now disproportionately in hands of those who may understand technology better than they do policy (leaving the 'capture' element spoken of by Guru out since this element involves actors who understand the power of policy very well, and misuse it thoroughly). So we need more policy expertise to bear upon this area, and thus the needed discussion at IGF, which was created a public policy discussion forum... that's a good reason for getting CIR governance discussion to the IGF. Secondly, the issue of getting an item on agenda at the IGF is not only a matter of calling upon expertise on the involved issues - technical or policy related - but as much of legitimacy of the manner in which these issues are discussed and handled by bringing in the engagement of a wider stakeholder group... I think we need the balance between expertise aspect and representation/ legitimacy aspect of governance. This is the second good reason for discussing CIRs at the IGF... And we must also remember the connection between reason one above (balance of expertise) and reason two (political legitimacy).... this is abput how political ideologies get easily wrapped in 'expertise' dispensation... You may have heard of 'Californian ideology' - a term that tries to capture the dominant ideology among techies and technocrats. A real world exposure to other world ideologies at the IGF can only help us get a more balanced view of things - the issue of CIR governance in this case. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:40 PM > To: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? > > Hi, > > I think one of the things people fear, and something I myself > fear in all sorts of venues, is the effects of both innocently > inaccurate information and FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). > > So in any endeavor there may be people who believe that a specific > topic does not belong on an agenda. however, once it is put on the > the agenda, they want to make sure that those who understand the > topic are properly represented (btw, no endorsement of any proposed > speaker on my part is intended). I don't think it is > necessary to presume a belief of conspiracy nor is it necessary > to be involved in one. > > in the field of technopolicy this is even more prevalent since > it is impossible, i believe, to do technopolicy without understanding > both technology and policy. and, again in my view, there as as many > of us dabbling in technopolicy who don't understand technology as > there are who don't understand policy. > > a. > > > > On 6 sep 2007, at 07.41, Parminder wrote: > > > s it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an > > important area > > of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to > > counter > > some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open > > discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is > > afraid > > of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' > > openly than > > through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will > > make for > > much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions > > rather > > than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a > > special case > > that needs to be shielded from public policy. > > > > I say this only as a point to ponder.... with no intention to decry > > people > > and their points of view. > > > > Disclaimer: I do not know the people whose names have been suggested, > > neither about their expertise and work. I am sure these persons, since > > McTim, who has been around in this area for long, is suggesting > > them, must > > be very capable people and should be speaking at the IGF. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 6 13:38:42 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 02:38:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Updates to IGF web page In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709060949k13a46ad2x7b1e613c9fed6459@mail.gmail.com> References: <75BDA331-5438-4E1B-AE5F-B2918B5D0A92@acm.org> <954259bd0709060949k13a46ad2x7b1e613c9fed6459@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 6:49 PM +0200 9/6/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Thanks Avri. > >As far as I am concerned, the Links to Everton's >papers are not accessible (ie i cannot open >them). is it my machine ? Dear Bertrand the links are: and I wasn't able to attend the the 2nd day of the MAG meeting when Everton submitted these papers, I do not know how they were discussed or why they were accepted by the group, seems a bit unusual. I saw the papers last night when I got off a flight from Geneva to Boston and sent a rough reaction (i.e. not very well thought out :-) to the MAG list. My comments on Everton's paper below. Best, Adam At 10:37 AM +0900 9/6/07, Adam Peake wrote: > >Dear Everton, colleagues: > >I am tired after travelling from Geneva to the >US, but here are some initial comments on the >paper "Elements to be considered for structuring >the IGF ". > >I'm quoting the relevant text from the paper followed by my comment: > >"The AG should act as a supporting mechanism to >the organization, procedure and conduct of >business at the IGF; " > >comment: I believe the AG should be responsible >for implementing the suggestions/recommendations >of all stakeholders as expressed in public >consultations (meetings and other calls for >contributions etc.) regarding the organization, >procedure and conduct of business of the IGF on >an ongoing basis. I don't understand what >"supporting mechanism" means. Saying "at the IGF" >suggests to me that we would be discussing an >annual meeting and meeting only, not a process. I >think we should consider the IGF an ongoing >process of dialogue. 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. > > >"The AG should have no more than _____ members" > >comment: Ideally the number should be quite >small, but I think diversity requirements will >force the AG to remain around the current number. >48 is divisible by four. > > >"AG members should be appointed by and are >accountable to their respective stakeholder >group;" > >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. > > >"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their >representatives to the AG according to its own >procedure, which should be transparent, >democratic and inclusive; " > >comment: How many? Should the four groups appoint >equal numbers? If not why not? (Noting government >members are the largest grouping in the current >arrangement.) > >As I think was mentioned during the open >consultation on Monday, a problem with this >suggestion is there is no way to achieve overall >balance of the AG if each group appoints members >independently. We need diversity of geography, >gender, and expertise (by expertise I mean in >terms of subject and also in the sub-sectors of >our respective stakeholder groups.) > > >"Balanced regional representation should be >observed by each stakeholder group, when rotating >its representatives;" > >comment: Regional representation is not the only >factor. Members need to have different subject >matter expertise: for example some of us know >more about access (issues and people) and others >more about critical Internet resources. >Membership needs to be finely balanced across all >stakeholder groups. > > >"Gender balance should be sought." > >comment: Suggest that in the spirit of the WSIS >documents and accepted good practise, Gender >balance should be required. An expert on Gender >and ICT would be a welcome addition to the >chair's advisor group(s), the Brazilian groups >seems particularly male :-) > > >"The AG should be co-chaired by one >representative appointed by the UN >Secretary-General and one representative >appointed by the host country;" > >comment: I think the role of the host country >representative co-chair to be defined, why it is >necessary explained (I mean no disrespect to Mr. >Vianna, but as we have discussed the importance >of transparency it seems a good idea to explain >this important change.) The Secretary-General's >appointee would logically be responsible for >overall convening of the meeting, while it would >make sense for the local host appointee to be >oriented to logistical matters. I do not mean to >suggest a strict division of labor, but a >tendency. > > >"At the invitation of the AG, non-members should >participate at AG meetings as observers;" > >comment: How will this be achieved? Consensus of >all AG members? A vote (two third agreement?) If >a way to implement this suggestion can be agreed >then it would need to be done well in advance so >people are able to plan travel to the meetings so >as not to disadvantage those who are not based >locally (i.e. stakeholders from developing >nations in particular.) > > >"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;" > >comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this. > >"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions." > >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. > >Hope this helps, and apologies for this rather rushed response to the paper. > >I will try to send comments on the other paper "A >³package² deal for Rio" later. But one >observation on "substance" is to note the >increased emphasis on Access, and discussion of >critical Internet resources consistent with WSIS >principles seems a departure from where I thought >we were headed with the session? And I don't >remember we agreed on a session on the future of >the IGF structure etc, though the civil society >Internet Governance Caucus is leading >organization of a workshop on the IGF mandate and >would like to see some discussion on this in a >main session. > >Best, > >Adam > >Best > >Bertrand > >On 9/6/07, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote: > >hi, > >There is an update to the IGF page.  Specifically it includes: > >- Updated program - >http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/ >DraftProgramme.06.09.2007.rtf > >- Report on AG meeting - >http://www.intgovforum.org/Summary.AG. >05.09.07.rtf > >Note on the report - it includes a link to 2 papers submitted by Mr >Everton Lucero  in >his role as an adviser to the Host Country Co-Chair. > >a. >in my role as occasional consultant to the IGF secretariat >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 6 14:44:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:14:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46DFC7C6.8020202@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070906184508.EE21AE17A1@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > policy processes Jeanette What binding processes are you referring to.... And I find the whole argument strange... You seem not to want governments to exercise power, and CS should not be part of any power system.... I find such anarchic dispositions very dangerous to civilization. Power is a part of every social structure, and is more formally approached and acknowledged in public policy arenas... we cannot just wish away power and authority.... and if one does so that simply serves the status quo. More democratic and accountable power systems rely on distributed power - and differentiated power roles - power of legislation, of execution, of extracting accountability, of voting in governments, of media and flow of information, power of advise, power of expertise etc etc ..... there are many forms of hard and soft forms of power - and civil society has differing roles in different areas... I think some representatives of civl society (chosen in howsoever imperfect manner) exercising power, along with the balancing presence of other stakeholders, of laying agenda of global discussions on Internet policies, and issuing non binding recommendations is quite right.... and very much needed. I wonder why and how you think MAG members do not exercise power at present.... they of course do... Recognizing power relationship is the first step in seeking structural changes in favor of the disadvantaged, and refusing such recognition, a simple propagation of the status quo. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet > community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > Hi, > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this > protection. > > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > > > I must though mention (in relation to my earlier email on Brazilian > > co-chair) that I agree with the Brazilian position stated at the May > > consultations and re-stated in September consultations that instead of > > the present situation where all authority and power is vested in the UN > > Secy General, and the MAG merely advises him, it is better to move > > towards a more empowered IGF committee or something (this is not > > necessarily connected to IGF's recommendation giving possibilities, > > which can be discussed separately, and not also to a 3 or 4 part bureau) > > that exercises authority on its own behalf. We should be happy to have a > > multistakeholder body exercise this authority rather than the UN Sect > > General and the connected bureaucracy. > > > > I don't see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. > > What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a > > multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN > > Secy General. Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in > > global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to > > do so? > > > > Why our exaggerated fears of a strong IGF more important that the > > possibility of CS being an equal part of a substantive and self > > governing global governance body? > > > > However, I won't like to see governmental co-chairship of MAG as a > > process towards such substantive strengthening. I prefer a UN Sec Gen > > nominated chair. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Sep 6 15:55:30 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 12:55:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Kieren, One rather gaping hole in the online public comment process is the lack of effective promotion of open-comment periods. There is little visibility of this platform among the general public (and I would argue that the general public has deep and systematic interests in these policy-making processes). In the recent new gTLD policy comment period that closed on 30 August, the Keep The Core Neutral campaign generated roughly 50 comments out of a total of roughly 80 (note: we had another 13 that never showed up because the confirmation messages from the ICANN system never got through to them -- quite possibly caught by spam filters -- that could mean that on the order of 20% of public comments are typically not getting through anyway, which is demoralizing to a member of the public who genuinely wishes to participate), and that is in comparison to an average total volume of comments much closer to 10 or so per topic. It took pro-active work of a fairly sustained nature to generate even that level of attention for new gTLD policy. If ICANN expects the public comments to be taken seriously as a channel for "citizen voice" in the policy process, it must do a far better job in outreach and public visibility. Real human beings need to pick up the phone and/or email and pro actively contact tech policy communities (including both tech communities and policy communities both public and private, and one-to-many media serving those communities as well as interactive fora such as this list). This needs to be done for each topic in its own right. Who are you targeting for your newsletter? Who else are you partnering with to build visibility? And, can you clarify exactly what is done with public comments and exactly how they can affect policy-making at ICANN? How much of an impact can these comments make, and what is structurally established in terms of formal requirements to take into account such comments? Where the rubber hits the road is: (a) who knows to participate, and (b) what effect will participation have? If these points cannot be clarified, then the value of public participation must be questioned as a default. It would be a shame if such a system were set up mainly to provide a smoke-screen to point to for political spin purposes rather than to create a meaningful channel for public participation in policy-making. Part of your outreach must also be to prime the public beforehand to understand the issues as they are being developed, well before they are made available to public comments toward the end. And, why not pro-actively seek to involve members of the public earlier in the process? The effort it takes to track an issue through the arcane policy process at ICANN is considerable, and even those who have strong informed opinions may not have the time to wade through the email list archives, etc. You need to create a more effective portal to those public materials (e-lists, teleconference recordings and transcripts, council votes, etc.) organized by topic, on the ICANN web site, and it would also help to summarize those materials to help provide quick overview to those without the time to spend hours and hours codifying those public materials. Please understand, I know this is a huge task and you are only one person right now. But I urge you to keep your eyes on the prize: the *proper* way to do this requires tremendous human resources, and I don't know that ICANN has allocated sufficient resources to do more than a surface attempt to address meaningful public participation in its policy processes. You need a team of a dozen (or several dozen) to put in place what really deserves to be there if ICANN wants to be *serious* about public participation. Forgive me if I doubt that ICANN really has prioritized this meaningfully. You can't possibly do this job effectively by yourself -- no one on the planet is that super-human. Dan PS -- Just to underscore this in a simple way: Putting up a web site does not constitute promotion. This is a mistake many businesses made in the past, and ICANN would do well to learn from their mistakes. The few hits that catch widespread public attention are the minute exception to the rule, and frankly, ICANN is not such a hit at present. ICANN is entirely under the radar in the realm of general public awareness, and if you do not contend with this lack of recognition systematically you are not creating a meaningful channel for public voice in ICANN policy-making, plain and simple. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If ICANN opens a web site in the vastness of the Internet and no one comes to view it, does it create a communication channel? In both cases, the answer is no. At 11:21 AM +0100 9/6/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >In relation to this comment from, I think, McTim: > >> In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", >> that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that >> they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, >> there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join >> the Internet community fora. > > >We're talking about ICANN of course. > >Can I just say from my position as general manager of public participation >that ICANN is indeed open and I am doing all I can to make it so that >participation by all is easy, simple and, most importantly, effective. > >I am beefing up the public comment process >(http://www.icann.org/public_comment/); participation in meetings is >possible in person or online; what ICANN is doing and will be doing is >compiled and released in the form of newsletters (there will be a big, long >and slightly boring newsletter out hopefully this week that covers each >policy point in term, with full links). > >ICANN is increasingly using online surveys to improve and simplify feedback. >I will run one very soon that asks the community what info they want and how >they want it. > >There is an ICANN participation site (http://public.icann.org/) where you >are actively encouraged to put up your thoughts - it is an open and highly >interactive community site specially designed to raise and thrash out >issues. Responses on the public participation site and to the ICANN blog are >read and I always do my best to get answers to people that raise useful >questions. > >The system is wide open for participation. And this is the most important >part -- the decisions are made by those that turn up. If people do >participate and then claim they are being ignored or dealt with unfairly, I >will take that very seriously and sort the situation out. But I've not see >even a whisper of that. > >At this very moment, three of the biggest areas of complaint have public >comment periods open on them: domain tasting; changes to the RAA to sort out >the domain registering system; and reform of the Nominating Committee. > >These are the mechanisms by which you can have real and lasting change on >the way this part of the Internet works. > >Time spent arguing for a fantasy new body to be developed to deal with these >issues, in the mistaken belief that somehow a new solution will work any >better, is to my mind a waste of time and energy. > >Why not consider spending just a little of that time interacting in a >meaningful way with the system that actually will make these decisions, with >or without you? > > > >Incidentally, do we know if the MAG agreed to make minutes of its meetings >public? > > > > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 18:45:02 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:45:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts - Speakers In-Reply-To: <200709051009.KAA04233@safat.kisr.edu.kw> References: <200709051009.KAA04233@safat.kisr.edu.kw> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B47E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Qusai Al-Shatti [mailto:qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:10 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts > - Speakers > > Hi all, > The advisory Group has concluded its discussion on the critical Internet > resources theme by agreeing to have a 5-7 balanced panel of experts, > including the major players, reflecting a range of views. So any > suggestion of speakers to represent the civil society views. > > Qusai Qusai: The Internet Governance Project has been focusing on critical internet resources from a critical perspective for some time. Experts associated with it include myself, Brenden Kuerbis (who will lead a panel on DNSSEC in Rio), Jeanette Hofmann, Lee McKnight and Hans Klein. I note that almost all the other speaker suggestions are associated with vested interests in critical internet resources (IANA, ISOC, RIRs). This is not criticism of those people, nor is it intended to suggest that such people, who are often very knowledgeable and have good ideas, should not be represented. But it would be a travesty of an independent and open dialogue if the only people given a voice on such a panel were the people who have their own institutions and organizations and their policies to defend. We need some independent perspectives. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 18:49:45 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:49:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation In-Reply-To: <46DEA69E.4090903@Malcolm.id.au> References: <20070905110822.82DA2E0620@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEA69E.4090903@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B47F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> This is a great point, Jeremy. Principled, long-term recommendations, policies and demands have an important role in these processes, regardless of whether they are immediately accepted. Maybe it is a bit too optimistic to say that "everything" we call for gets taken up; the key is to win over allies in governments and /or business, who can be persuaded by, or find some kind of self-interest in, our calls. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 8:53 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGF public consultation > > Anyway, what I took away from the September open consultation was how > almost everything that civil society agitates for seems eventually to be > taken up by other stakeholder groups, or even by the Secretariat, some > months later. For example: > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 18:55:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:55:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> References: <200709041447.l84ElZEd028322@ns1.afrinic.net> <46DD7630.8080508@wzb.eu> <954259bd0709050200u26f30ecbhbe942dafdfdda3d5@mail.gmail.com> <46DE8A1E.8080806@wzb.eu> <20070905121353.GA30717@nic.fr> <20070905122650.GA32048@nic.fr> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B480@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] > > In that case, the representative from IANA should be someone from the > US government. Yes, in the spirit of open and honest dialogue, I would support this, too. It would be good to have a USG representative up there in a dialogue that was not a speech or stage-managed. Condi Rice would be best, of course, but you may have to make do with Suzanne Sene, Richard Beaird, or Ms. Attwell. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 19:07:47 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:07:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B485@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Haven't we already moved well beyond this tired ITU vs. ICANN dichotomy? I sincerely believe that it was put to rest when the WGIG report's 4 options did not even include a takeover of ICANN functions by ITU. I think even the ITU has lost interest in it. It's not going to happen anyway. No, the issue is much more profound: national sovereignty vs. globality of the Internet, the role of territorial governments in setting global policy, the need for _global_ institutions to deliver effective governance, the threat that control of the resources of the internet can be abused for political purposes (by non-US as well as US states), the inability of power holders in the international system to agree on what sort of governance we should have, the pre-eminence of the US in the internet governance regime, etc. Since this is such a huge problem, institutionally and historically speaking, nothing can or will be done about it immediately, so we may as well start talking about it now, because it will take decades to resolve. So relax, ISOC, enjoy the ride. ;-) Names and numbers (i.e., "critical resources) push globalization of governance debates to the forefront because they are essential to universal interoperability of the internet. If we can't manage to have effective global governance of those fairly well-bounded resource allocation and assignment problems you can forget about harder ones like security, content, e-commerce. > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:32 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > Hi Parminder, > > judging from what I heard the last 3 days in Geneva what people find > threatening are basically two things. > 1. An ideological deadlock resulting from a polarizing discussion that > narrows down potential options for future governance models to exactly > two: intergovernmental (ITU) versus private (ICANN). We all know from > WSIS that dichotomic debates don't lead anywhere because none of the > participants seems willing to change political preferences. > > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > Internet Governance. > > I am sure there are lots of other reasons why people prefer not to > discuss critical internet resources. But the two reasons mentioned above > are in my view already important enough to take them seriously. > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > Carrying on from my own email > > > >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most > >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these > issues, > >> MAG > >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette > >> observed > >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were > >> > >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than > other > >> sessions > >> > >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF > >> > >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC > could > >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. > >> > >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) > >> > >> Parminder > > > > Meanwhile, I cannot understand why some groups spend so much energy on > > trying to shape - or put out of any shape - a discussion session on > CIRs.... > > So much was spoken during the consultations on how this session should > be > > treated in a manner different from other main sessions, and frankly, I > could > > not really understand even one argument well..... It may be my ignorance > and > > inaptitude but they seem to be putting some meaningless argument or > other to > > push this very illogical thing that a CIR main session should be > different > > (basically ineffectual). > > > > Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a > > pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related > proposals > > > >> finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the > >> Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, >transparency and > democracy > >> in the internal procedures of the IGF. > > > > I Agree. And would like an examination of and a good discussion on what > is > > it exactly that threatens the Internet community. Lets discuss real > issues, > > perspectives and fears out in the open rather than using proxy > arguments. > > The Internet community and the business sectors strongly supported more > > transparency during the open consultations... transparency starts with > > stating upfront real issues/ concerns/ fears rather than masquerading > them > > in arguments that look quite untenable. > > > > The session that is most important to be held is - What is it that > threatens > > the Internet community or 'Who is afraid of the IGF' and why? > > > > Why so much energy invested in keeping a discussion on CIRs out, and now > > when it is in, to shape/ distort the session towards ineffectuality. > > > > Why a simple annual IGF report, set of recommendations, a communiqué or > any > > such thing that fulfills the corresponding part of Tunis agenda for the > IGF > > look SO threatening? Even if it is a wrong thing to do, what are the > REAL > > fears? It is of IGF getting hamstrung to do other work it needs to do. > But > > then many (not all) who now oppose recommendation have not initially > been > > enthusiastic about the IGF as a public policy discussion space at all > > (remember the last phase of the WSIS). So why such exaggerated fear of > IGF > > getting unable to do its basic work, and becoming ineffective. Or is the > > fear that governments will capture recommendation-making activity. I > don't > > see how this can happen given the present structure of the IGF? (I may > be > > wrong on this, and, in that case, I will like someone to build the 'bad' > > scenario for me)....Or does IGF not represent the only global space > where > > non-government actors can be equal partners in giving policy > > recommendations. > > > > The structures and systems may need to evolve, and we may only be able > to > > agree on a very few things to start with, but why not try... Why kill > the > > first and the only multistakeholder global policy recommendation giving > > body? > > > > Frank and open discussions alone help move things forward. One side may > > realize some things which may be genuine to fear, and the other may find > > that certain fears may not be so justified. > > > > It will be very useful to discuss this issue on this list itself, since > > quite a diversity of views around this matter are represented here. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 4:38 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: RE: [governance] IGF public consultation > >> > >> > >> Hi Jeanette > >> > >> I did send out an email on the 29th asking for any issues that members > may > >> want raised and myself presented some views in how things stood vis a > vis > >> preparation for Rio. I know it was kind of late but there has been too > >> much > >> silence on the IGC lately, a situation which despite some efforts by me > >> and > >> some others did not change much. For instance, we need discussions on > the > >> issue of the UN communiqué raising issues of rotation, transparency etc > in > >> IGF and MAG, and of giving the issue new consideration after Rio. > Bertrand > >> made the very useful suggestion on IGC taking a proactive stance on > giving > >> new definitions and recommendations etc... > >> > >> I think statements can only come if such discussions are taken > forward... > >> > >> I also asked those members of IGC which were to be present on the 3rd > in > >> Geneva to discuss a possible meeting so that if necessary some kind of > >> statement could be read out, after collectively determining that it is > in > >> consonance with the known views of IGC... but no one responded... > >> > >> On the other hand I think APC's input addressed the main issue very > well - > >> that of the revision/ reform of the MAG /IGF, including issues of > rotation > >> of members, nomination of new members by stakeholders themselves, and > of > >> the > >> governmental co-chair.. And IT for Change and some others supported the > >> statement. And also added the point of transparency of MAG and flow of > >> information and gave some concrete suggestion.. I have a feeling that > the > >> suggestion for a meeting report of the closed sessions may be accepted > >> since > >> Nitin responded quite well to it. This will also specifically address > the > >> concern raised in the UN SG's communiqué. > >> > >> I think APC statement plus these other points could safely have been > >> adopted > >> as the caucus statement, but for this (1) we need some activity on the > IGC > >> prior to such meetings and (2) more liberty to those present to judge > the > >> 'perspectives of the IGC' and make a statement 'on their feet'. In this > >> case, as an additional factor which worked against a pre-prepared > >> statement, > >> the agenda for the consultation was itself circulated too late (if I am > >> right)... > >> > >> The other two issues that took a great amount of the time, with most > >> contributions for the technical and business community (on these > issues, > >> MAG > >> members from these groups spoke most of the time, when as Anriette > >> observed > >> in her statement they should have focused more on listening), were > >> > >> (1) why the session on CIR should of a very different quality than > other > >> sessions > >> > >> (2) what are the problems with a recommendation giving power for IGF > >> > >> Both these issues are such on which a statement on behalf of the IGC > could > >> only be made on the after a good amount of online discussions, if so. > >> > >> So hoping for more life on the IGC list :) > >> > >> Parminder > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ________________________________________________ > >> Parminder Jeet Singh > >> IT for Change, Bangalore > >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >> www.ITforChange.net > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:05 PM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: [governance] IGF public consultation > >>> > >>> Hi, in case you didn't notice there was no caucus statement yesterday. > >>> While the business sector had interventions on almost every issue on > the > >>> agenda, the caucus didn't have a single one. There were only > >>> contributions by ICT for Change, APC, some other organizations and a > few > >>> individuals. This is a missed opportunity to influence the discussion > on > >>> the further institutionalization of the IGF. It also makes the role of > >>> cs people in the advisory group more difficult. We have less papers > and > >>> interventions to refer to in the advisory group meeting than other > >>> stakeholders. > >>> jeanette > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > 8:36 AM > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Sep 6 19:37:24 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:37:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > Internet Governance. It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes. And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who will be the primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues there. As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been written in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules is their substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. --Milton Mueller No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 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 Thu Sep 6 19:48:54 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:48:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > One rather gaping hole in the online public comment process is the lack of > effective promotion of open-comment periods. I agree. Although I wouldn't have phrased it quite so rudely. But I think it's wise to take this off this list because this is all about ICANN and ICANN processes and I'm certain it is going to annoy everyone else. Actually, no, I've just read your post and you make a load of aggressive and incorrect criticisms so I think I'll answer them here (I apologise to the others on the list). I'll try to keep it concise. If you want to respond, can I suggest we go off-list - or, better, have an open conversation on ICANN's public participation site. -------------------------------------------- > There is little visibility of this platform among the general public The public comment page has a link on every page on the ICANN website. It creation was announced on the front page of the ICANN website (which is then send out to all subscribers of the news alerts service) and on the blog and in the first issue of a new magazine. Links within the page have since popped up on several thousand different webpages on the Net. If you type "icann public comment" into Google you will be taken directly to the page. The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly. ------------------------------------------------ > the Keep The Core Neutral campaign generated roughly 50 comments out > of a total of roughly 80 You used a Web form with pre-prepared text and a send button aimed it at a particular ICANN email address. Some people typed in the wrong email address in your form; others failed to respond to a confirmation email sent by ICANN in order to deal with an enormous spam problem. Personally, I would prefer that complex policy decisions covering the future expansion of the Internet were dealt with through reason and logic rather than whoever manages to muster the largest number of copycat statements. Nonethelesss, they appeared on the page, they have appeared in a summary/analysis of comments that I need to stick up very soon, and that summary will be given to the appropriate council to review as part of its decision-making process. ---------------------------------------------- > Real human beings need to pick up the phone and/or email and pro > actively contact tech policy communities ICANN already does this. It's just that you may not have received a call. It is also not as effective as we thought it would be (less than 1 in 10 success rate on even personal contact). But we're expanding it nonetheless. ---------------------------------------------- > Who are you targeting for your newsletter? Anyone that signs up (http://www.icann.org/magazine/; http://www.icann.org/newsletter/). The magazine has in one month gone from 0 people to just under 1,000. I think there are 4,000 people signed up to the news alerts. ----------------------------------------------- > Who else are you partnering with to build visibility? This is just management nonsense. But the answer is: two of the biggest company institutes in the world. ------------------------------------------------- > Can you clarify exactly what is done with public comments and > exactly how they can affect policy-making at ICANN? Yes. The information you are looking for is here - http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-23jun07.h tm#consul. This new consultation framework was launched (along with a range of other frameworks covering translation, information disclosure, code of conduct, accountability, dispute resolution and various others) at a public session in San Juan that was also available online, webcast and audiocast, and had its own chatroom. A comment period on them was opened at the end of June which was announced on the front page of the ICANN website and on the ICANN blog. It closed on 31 August. I don't see your name there anywhere. ---------------------------------------------------- > (a) who knows to participate, and (b) what effect will participation have? Who knows to participate in anything? ICANN needs to improve its website to lead people through that I do agree with. The website is being redesigned, and we have a team of journalists about to start work on rewriting large sections of the ICANN website to make it more accessible and easier to understand. What effect will participation have? Well, it depends on the quality of the participation and whether people can persuade the Internet community of their point. At its best, it can change the way the Internet works. At the other end you'll find people making endless, inaccurate statements without any basis in fact and loosely tied around a vague conspiracy... -------------------------------------------------- > It would be a shame if such a system were set up mainly to provide > a smoke-screen to point to for political spin purposes rather than > to create a meaningful channel for public participation in policy-making. ...like this one. -------------------------------------------------- > prime the public beforehand to understand the issues as they are > being developed, well before they are made available to public comments True in theory. In reality, ICANN has public comment periods at each step of development so you can not only see the process develop but also affect it at several points along the line. ICANN has agreed to follow OECD guidelines in large future consultations. That has as a key component outreach to people after an initial statement is produced. ------------------------------------------------- > The effort it takes to track an issue through the arcane policy > process at ICANN is considerable, Or, alternatively, you could click on the simple webpage set up for just that purpose: http://www.icann.org/processes/ ------------------------------------------------- > Putting up a web site does not constitute promotion. No. That is why we have a magazine, RSS feeds, news alerts, regional managers, three meetings a year, press releases, outreach events, a blog, constant appearances by staff at conferences across the world, and me popping up on mailing lists like this. -------------------------------------------- > ICANN is entirely under the radar in the realm of general public awareness Yes it is. That is because it is a body that deals with issues that very few people actually care about. I know this because I have written about domain names and the Internet for a very large range of newspapers and magazines for eight years. News editors aren't interested because people aren't interested. Some are though. I like these people, in general. ---------------------------------------------- > If ICANN opens a web site in the vastness of the Internet and no > one comes to view it, does it create a communication channel? But they do come to view it. Tens of thousands of people every day. You should try it - you might find some of the answers you are looking for. 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 20:41:55 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 17:41:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dan, You asked: can you clarify exactly what is done with public comments and exactly how they can affect policy-making at ICANN? With regard to public comments on new gTLDs there were a total of 81 such comments submitted. During today's GNSO Council meeting the agenda called for a review of the Final Report on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains, followed by a review of the public comments, followed by a vote. After the Council finished their discussion on the report's principles, recommendations and implementation elements they proceeded directly to a vote without any structured discussion of the public comments -- the formal review of the public comments as mandated by the agenda never happened. Yes, certain public comments were noted in passing throughout the discussion, but no segment of time was specifically set aside and used to review these comments. Sending your comments to ICANN's GNSO is very often pretty much like attaching a note to a brick and throwing it over the wall... maybe it will get read, but don't count on it. That's the reality. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 6 21:32:17 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:32:17 +1000 Subject: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts - Speakers In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B47E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <000001c7f0ee$f609ab60$8b00a8c0@IAN> Just supporting Milton's call - Without independent experts, the panels will be boring and lacking in substance. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: 07 September 2007 08:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Qusai Al-Shatti Subject: RE: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts - Speakers > -----Original Message----- > From: Qusai Al-Shatti [mailto:qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:10 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Advisory Group agrees on a balanced panel of experts > - Speakers > > Hi all, > The advisory Group has concluded its discussion on the critical Internet > resources theme by agreeing to have a 5-7 balanced panel of experts, > including the major players, reflecting a range of views. So any > suggestion of speakers to represent the civil society views. > > Qusai Qusai: The Internet Governance Project has been focusing on critical internet resources from a critical perspective for some time. Experts associated with it include myself, Brenden Kuerbis (who will lead a panel on DNSSEC in Rio), Jeanette Hofmann, Lee McKnight and Hans Klein. I note that almost all the other speaker suggestions are associated with vested interests in critical internet resources (IANA, ISOC, RIRs). This is not criticism of those people, nor is it intended to suggest that such people, who are often very knowledgeable and have good ideas, should not be represented. But it would be a travesty of an independent and open dialogue if the only people given a voice on such a panel were the people who have their own institutions and organizations and their policies to defend. We need some independent perspectives. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.6/991 - Release Date: 05/09/2007 14:55 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 06/09/2007 15:18 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Sep 6 21:45:58 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 18:45:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: Kieren, I understand that you may take criticisms of ICANN's public participation policy as a personal attack. In fact it isn't intended that way, unless you have real authority and resources to do everything you'd want to do in that regard. I'm really placing blame further up the ladder and assuming you are not fully resourced or authorized to do a proper job. I don't know you from Adam other than from a few emails here and there, so this cannot be personal. It's institutional. The very comment quoted at the start below doesn't seem "rude" to me, especially since you just replied that you agree. It is a fact that you agree that there is a lack of effective promotion of open-comment periods at ICANN. Let's just start there, and then see what might be done to address it. I don't know if you feel you have to defend ICANN's public participation strategy in order to defend your record to ICANN internally or something. In any case, your responses show that what is at issue here is not a matter of "correctness" or "incorrectness" but rather a matter of judgment as to what is genuinely effective or not, and what is a sufficient effort in order to make a substantive claim of genuine public participation in policy-making. Comments interspersed below. At 12:48 AM +0100 9/7/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> One rather gaping hole in the online public comment process is the lack of >> effective promotion of open-comment periods. > > >I agree. Although I wouldn't have phrased it quite so rudely. Put on your armor and address the facts. Whatever frustration I may be expressing is at ICANN not at you. >-------------------------------------------- > >> There is little visibility of this platform among the general public > >The public comment page has a link on every page on the ICANN website. Obviously that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about visibility in public discourse separate from ICANN's own web platform. ... If you type >"icann public comment" into Google you will be taken directly to the page. > >The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly. If you don't know to type-in "icann public comment" into Google, why would anyone even know or think to do so? It takes a separate promotional channel to get the word out generally, so that "general people" have even the first reason to explore in the first place. >------------------------------------------------ >> the Keep The Core Neutral campaign generated roughly 50 comments out >> of a total of roughly 80 > >You used a Web form with pre-prepared text and a send button aimed it at a >particular ICANN email address. Some people typed in the wrong email address >in your form; others failed to respond to a confirmation email sent by ICANN >in order to deal with an enormous spam problem. Some of them never received the confirmation email because it got caught in their own spam filters. Perhaps all of them. Can you confirm any bounces indicating mistyped email addresses? I emailed all of them directly (and individually) myself, and I didn't get any bounces. I can supply you with the addresses, if you like. >Personally, I would prefer that complex policy decisions covering the future >expansion of the Internet were dealt with through reason and logic rather >than whoever manages to muster the largest number of copycat statements. If a "copycat" statement is formulated rationally and logically, and someone decides to sign on to it, why is that not valid? There is a "long tail" of constituent voice in any political process, and this is simply a way to capture that full distribution of constituent preference, especially when people have tie/resource limits to such participation. It sounds as if you are arguing for an elitist stance with regard to public participation, though I hope I am mistaken. Embrace anyone, so long as they can invest the resources to participate on a long-term basis, and anyone who cannot invest that time or only found out about it at the last minute is rejected from the process? >Nonethelesss, they appeared on the page, they have appeared in a >summary/analysis of comments that I need to stick up very soon, and that >summary will be given to the appropriate council to review as part of its >decision-making process. This is a typical structure used by organizations like MoveOn.org and FreePress.net and a myriad of other constituency-mobilization campaigns to get comments to elected representatives, etc. Some people who care about the issue don't have time to formulate their own words, but they should not be precluded from having a voice in the process if they agree with what others have pre-digested. ICANN may choose to weight those comments differently from others, but ICANN should certainly not weight them to zero. This was the first attempt to mobilize a broad public participation in ICANN policy-input process. Our petition has over 250 signatures (about 100 of them organizations, the rest individuals). Compare that with SaveTheInternet's 1.6 million to support net neutrality. There's some head room here, still. >---------------------------------------------- >> Real human beings need to pick up the phone and/or email and pro >> actively contact tech policy communities > >ICANN already does this. It's just that you may not have received a call. It >is also not as effective as we thought it would be (less than 1 in 10 >success rate on even personal contact). But we're expanding it nonetheless. Well, then, that's good news. There's probably lots of room for expansion, and I hope you get the full resources and authority to do it properly. >---------------------------------------------- >> Who are you targeting for your newsletter? > >Anyone that signs up (http://www.icann.org/magazine/; >http://www.icann.org/newsletter/). The magazine has in one month gone from 0 >people to just under 1,000. I think there are 4,000 people signed up to the >news alerts. That's not "targeting" -- I'm talking about pro-active communications to get people to subscribe. People who are not already plugged into ICANN communications channels of some sort. And frankly, I'm plugged into *some* ICANN channels, but apparently not into that one. I didn't even know there was a newsletter until you mentioned it -- I don't have time to go hunting around the ICANN web site for stuff that I don't even know is there. I'm busy with important things, like most other members of the general public. There's a missing link here, and that's the point I'm trying to make. In order for people to hear your tree falling in the forest, you first have to bring their bodies to the forest. >----------------------------------------------- >> Who else are you partnering with to build visibility? > >This is just management nonsense. But the answer is: two of the biggest >company institutes in the world. Very nice, I hope they are doing something valuable for you. Apparently not enough just yet. (Aside: what the heck is a "company institute" anyway? Some kind of PR firm? That's new jargon to me.) >------------------------------------------------- >> Can you clarify exactly what is done with public comments and >> exactly how they can affect policy-making at ICANN? > >Yes. The information you are looking for is here - >http://www.icann.org/transparency/acct-trans-frameworks-principles-23jun07.h >tm#consul. Interesting item under transparency: "Explain how the input will be used" -- so, where is this explanation, for example, in the context of new gTLD policy? How will *that* input be used? We know the comments will be summarized for the GNSO Council meeting today (oops, I hope you didn't miss that deadline -- they were supposed to be voting on this policy at that meeting), but how will (or did) the Council incorporate them into its deliberations and decisions? This new consultation framework was launched (along with a range >of other frameworks covering translation, information disclosure, code of >conduct, accountability, dispute resolution and various others) at a public >session in San Juan that was also available online, webcast and audiocast, >and had its own chatroom. > >A comment period on them was opened at the end of June which was announced >on the front page of the ICANN website and on the ICANN blog. It closed on >31 August. I don't see your name there anywhere. I had no idea this consultation was happening, of course. I guess I didn't attend that session in San Juan (I had a full schedule as it was, and didn't pay much attention to things I didn't already have to deal with like Whois WG and gTLD workshop and GNSO and NCUC meetings, etc.). Had I known it, I may have participated. Oops, too late. I wonder who knew about this? Can't have been very many. Again, if I don't know it's happening, how can I allocate time to look for it? Do you think that even ICANN meeting attendees can be aware and participate in everything going on in an ICANN meeting? You'd have to have five clones working full-time. Interesting comments from a few people at San Juan I talked to: even though they'd been involved internally with ICANN for several years, they still "didn't know what is going on at ICANN." This is from insider veterans who participate not only in public comments but in constituencies and advisory committees and task forces and working groups. I don't check the ICANN front page on any regular basis, and I haven't had time for the blog either. Again, even this doesn't bring the bodies to the forest. It's not realistic. >---------------------------------------------------- >> (a) who knows to participate, and (b) what effect will participation have? > > >Who knows to participate in anything? ICANN needs to improve its website to >lead people through that I do agree with. The website is being redesigned, >and we have a team of journalists about to start work on rewriting large >sections of the ICANN website to make it more accessible and easier to >understand. Well, great, then that sounds like a positive step. But redesigning the web site isn't enough in itself. Independent pro-active outreach is ineliminable if you expect to bring the bodies to the forest. >What effect will participation have? Well, it depends on the quality of the >participation and whether people can persuade the Internet community of >their point. At its best, it can change the way the Internet works. At the >other end you'll find people making endless, inaccurate statements without >any basis in fact and loosely tied around a vague conspiracy... Who exactly do you define as "the Internet community"? It isn't "ICANN insiders" is it? My point here wasn't about final outcome so much as it was about formal internal process. How will ICANN's policy-making process use the public comments on the comment forum, and what is the internal/structural mechanism of that incorporation. This kind of thing is necessary in order to provide real transparency into a policy-making process. How do the nuts and bolts work, and how influential are these comments, really. Does ICANN take them seriously, and if so, how can that statement be substantiated above and beyond a mere unstructured claim? The vague principles linked to above do not explain these details. I already saw them, and they did not answer my question then, and they still don't now. >-------------------------------------------------- >> prime the public beforehand to understand the issues as they are >> being developed, well before they are made available to public comments > > >True in theory. In reality, ICANN has public comment periods at each step of >development so you can not only see the process develop but also affect it >at several points along the line. > >ICANN has agreed to follow OECD guidelines in large future consultations. >That has as a key component outreach to people after an initial statement is >produced. I'm not familiar with those OECD guidelines, but it sounds like a start. It may not be a finish, though. >------------------------------------------------- >> The effort it takes to track an issue through the arcane policy >> process at ICANN is considerable, > >Or, alternatively, you could click on the simple webpage set up for just >that purpose: http://www.icann.org/processes/ You can't be serious here. Even knowing the road map doesn't remove the task of digesting the entire raw contents of outputs. I'm not talking about knowing what the steps and schedules are, I'm talking about tracking the substance of what happens in detail. One-pager-type summaries, that sort of thing. The general public doesn't have time to wade through the mountain of details that the insiders have to wade through. Unless you're counting on independent journalists to do that (doesn't seem too likely these days, given the generally de-resourced state of "professional" journalism), again there's a missing link here. >------------------------------------------------- > >> Putting up a web site does not constitute promotion. > >No. That is why we have a magazine, RSS feeds, news alerts, regional >managers, three meetings a year, press releases, outreach events, a blog, >constant appearances by staff at conferences across the world, and me >popping up on mailing lists like this. And what audience do you reach with all of these efforts? Can you quantify it? It's a nice-sounding list, but if the numbers are small it doesn't necessarily add up to much. And if it is aimed only at a techie elite, then the general public is not likely to hear about it. Just how wide-ranging is the "public" to which you appeal? >-------------------------------------------- >> ICANN is entirely under the radar in the realm of general public awareness > >Yes it is. That is because it is a body that deals with issues that very few >people actually care about. I know this because I have written about domain >names and the Internet for a very large range of newspapers and magazines >for eight years. News editors aren't interested because people aren't >interested. Some are though. I like these people, in general. If everything that people say in connection to these issues is phrased in terms that do not connect with general public interests then it is understandable that the general public will not engage. They don't even understand because you haven't explained it to them in a way that they can understand. The weak spot here is understanding that the general public can be profoundly affected by some of the policies discussed at ICANN, and if that connection is not made in the communications you'll have (again) a missing link. When we're dealing with issues like personal privacy, freedom of expression and so forth, those connections need to be made explicitly in order to engage the general public. Keep to techie talk and jargony language and you'll be systematically driving away huge swaths of the population that would otherwise start to care quite a bit. It would be unwise to therefore assume that they are not "interested" -- more properly they are not well informed. >---------------------------------------------- >> If ICANN opens a web site in the vastness of the Internet and no >> one comes to view it, does it create a communication channel? > >But they do come to view it. Tens of thousands of people every day. You >should try it - you might find some of the answers you are looking for. Tens of thousands out of the billions of Internet users (i.e., "the Internet community"). Oh, that's huge. I'm sure they're all different individuals, no repeat visitors from day to day... Do you know your monthly cume? Does it even get into six digits? What about annual reach? And, how many pages does the typical visitor view? I'm sure they cover the whole site map, of course... Not like they come to one or two or maybe five or six pages and then they're gone. I'm sure they see everything you want them to see even if they're not explicitly looking for it. C'mon, Kieren. I've worked at enterprise level web services, I even helped launch Consumer Reports Online. CRO works because it had an existing subscriber base and constituent audience from decades of prior existence and branding. We didn't just put up a web site and expect people to find it on their own. We had a *ton* of other vehicles that we basically advertised in (the print magazine, the other print publications, 10 years' worth of other electronic media marketing, PR outreach, etc., etc.). Look, you're starting with an incomplete and imperfect setup, and I acknowledge that. I don't expect you personally to do miracles immediately. There's a *lot* of work to do, and frankly it must be tremendously daunting (if not, then there's something wrong in the picture). But please, don't take your eyes off the prize! And if you really disparage public mobilization campaigns like KTCN, then you have no business being in charge of public input. We brought as many public comments to ICANN for one topic as a dozen others combined. Why? Because in this case ICANN is threatening to address issues of a very general public policy nature in ways that are (and should be) alarming to the general public. Precedents could be set here that have long-standing endurance. To discount that input would be unwise if what you're really trying to do is understand what the general public cares about and incorporate it meaningfully into ICANN policy-making. To design a public comment process that is for insider techies only would do a disservice to the public interest as it concerns ICANN policy that could profoundly affect the general public. This whole discussion is directly at the interface between "Internet governance" and "public governance" -- where all the conceptual disagreements are exploding right now. That's why people who understand it care about it. If you haven't noticed, I'm *passionate" about these issues, myself, and I care about making/keeping the Internet a force for genuine bottom-up empowerment in societies across the globe. ICANN policy has systematically reached into realms of fundamentally general public interest. ICANN is not just for techies any more, due to its own ambitions to address matters of general public policy. If ICANN doesn't want to involve the general public, then it should stop trying to make policy of a general public nature. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Sep 6 22:04:14 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:04:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> Dan, you are missing one minor, but important point, which should be in the foundation when we talk about public interest in the work of ICANN. See below. At 18:45 9/6/2007 -0700, Dan Krimm wrote: >If you don't know to type-in "icann public comment" into Google, why would >anyone even know or think to do so? It takes a separate promotional >channel to get the word out generally, so that "general people" have even >the first reason to explore in the first place. Last year the NomCom circulated widely information about its work, and the fact there's a nomination window opened. This included, but was not limited, to Internet web sites, ads in the Economist, the International Herald Tribune (check http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/captioning-nomcomm-29jun06.htm ) Here's what George Sadowsky said: "In recruitment, we're trying some new things this year. What's on the screen is advert that appeared in "The Economist" I think it was about two weeks ago. It was a quarter page advertisement and we are fortunately receiving a few statements of interest, or at least receiving some interest as a result of this. And we are also going to place an advertisement in the "International Herald Tribune" probably next week. These things have to be tried. We are looking at ways to reach out beyond the ICANN community, and hopefully we are learning from new ways to do outreach and recruitment. " and then read this: http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-icannpublicforumpt2-07dec06.htm "WE USE THE ICANN FAMILY VERY HEAVILY FOR RECRUITING. WE TRIED ADVERTISING THIS YEAR, AND IT DIDN'T PAY OFF. WE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF MEETINGS, BOTH ICANN AND RELATED MEETINGS, AND WERE VOCAL AND PRESENT -- VISIBLE IN ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEADERSHIP WITHIN ICANN. WE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY A FLIER DESCRIBING THE POSITIONS." Once you read this, you will understand that Kieren is right - the general people are not interested ICANN. (and you can put here who is) The "general people" treat ICANN as their GSM phone company - they are neither happy nor unhappy that it works. They just use their phones. And if their phones are outside of the coverage area, they don't start calling the company and asking what's wrong (you see - their phones don't work; how can they do that) but find a way to deal with that, e.g. move a few feet away to get reception, or just ignore their phones. 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 dan at musicunbound.com Thu Sep 6 22:11:58 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:11:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Oh dear, I was afraid of that. All of Kieren's work (and ours at KTCN) gone for naught. How disappointing. If the links don't fit together inside ICANN's formal internal processes, how can this public input be anything more than a charade? (Please note: this is not a criticism of Kieren, as he has nothing personally to do with these processes, unless he had some responsibility to digest the comments for the Council and that didn't happen. Again, it is institutional in nature.) Dan PS -- BTW, how did the vote come out? Did it just get the rubber stamp to go to the Board in Los Angeles as-is? We have more work to do at KTCN... At 5:41 PM -0700 9/6/07, Danny Younger wrote: >Dan, > >You asked: can you clarify exactly what is done with >public comments and exactly how they can affect >policy-making at ICANN? > >With regard to public comments on new gTLDs there were >a total of 81 such comments submitted. > >During today's GNSO Council meeting the agenda called >for a review of the Final Report on the Introduction >of New Generic Top-Level Domains, followed by a review >of the public comments, followed by a vote. > >After the Council finished their discussion on the >report's principles, recommendations and >implementation elements they proceeded directly to a >vote without any structured discussion of the public >comments -- the formal review of the public comments >as mandated by the agenda never happened. > >Yes, certain public comments were noted in passing >throughout the discussion, but no segment of time was >specifically set aside and used to review these >comments. > >Sending your comments to ICANN's GNSO is very often >pretty much like attaching a note to a brick and >throwing it over the wall... maybe it will get read, >but don't count on it. That's the reality. > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Luggage? GPS? Comic books? >Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search >http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Thu Sep 6 22:31:57 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:31:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Veni, The missing link here is still that ICANN outreach probably does not make an effort to connect the techie details to issues of general public interest. Can you point me to the ads themselves anywhere? I'd like to see what they contained. General journalists are generally not experienced enough to make connections between techie details and public interest, but they are there (though many insiders at ICANN seem to want to systematically shield that reality from non-experts). It could simply be that all the ads were ineffective at informing a general public of the connection to their public interest. The "general people" should not even treat the phone company as "their phone company" these days. The net neutrality movement in the U.S. is making some headway there. It's a difficult thing to explain how these policy developments at ICANN affect general public interests, but when they are actually explained in a way that general public people can understand, it does increasingly make a difference. I have a hard time believing that the ads had any potential at being effective in this regard. I don't know whether those writing/designing the ads simply didn't have the expertise to do it right, or intentionally tried to obscure the connection, but I suspect that one or both of these things may have compromised the potential effectiveness of the ads. Also, ad placements have to be widespread and consistent over time. One-shots have little effect compared to ongoing campaigns, especially if they are general in nature (adverstising ICANN as an institution rather than advertising specific policy-making process that the public ought to pay attention to). Advertising is not automatically effective if it is poorly targeted, conceived, designed and placed. If those were the problems, then one cannot claim that there was effective advertising in the first place. In the experimental sciences, we call this "systematic error" in the experimental process. Of course, it help to have professional experts in the area where one is experimenting, in order to design and execute a valid experiment. Do the people who were designing the ad campaign have professional expertise in advertising and marketing, as well as enough expertise available in both the technological and policy aspects of the pitch to get the right message together for the right audience(s)? I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. Dan At 10:04 PM -0400 9/6/07, veni markovski wrote: >Dan, > >you are missing one minor, but important point, which should be in >the foundation when we talk about public interest in the work of >ICANN. See below. > >At 18:45 9/6/2007 -0700, Dan Krimm wrote: > >>If you don't know to type-in "icann public comment" into Google, why would >>anyone even know or think to do so? It takes a separate promotional >>channel to get the word out generally, so that "general people" have even >>the first reason to explore in the first place. > >Last year the NomCom circulated widely information about its work, >and the fact there's a nomination window opened. This included, but >was not limited, to Internet web sites, ads in the Economist, the >International Herald Tribune (check >http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/captioning-nomcomm-29jun06.htm >) Here's what George Sadowsky said: > >"In recruitment, we're trying some new things this year. What's on the screen >is advert that appeared in "The Economist" I think it was about two weeks >ago. It was a quarter page advertisement and we are fortunately receiving a >few statements of interest, or at least receiving some interest as a result >of this. >And we are also going to place an advertisement in the "International Herald >Tribune" probably next week. >These things have to be tried. We are looking at ways to reach out beyond >the ICANN community, and hopefully we are learning from new ways to do >outreach and recruitment. " > >and then read this: >http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-icannpublicforumpt2-07dec06.htm > >"WE USE THE ICANN FAMILY VERY HEAVILY FOR RECRUITING. >WE TRIED ADVERTISING THIS YEAR, AND IT DIDN'T PAY OFF. >WE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF MEETINGS, BOTH ICANN AND RELATED MEETINGS, >AND WERE VOCAL AND PRESENT -- VISIBLE IN ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES >FOR LEADERSHIP WITHIN ICANN. >WE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY A FLIER DESCRIBING THE POSITIONS." > > >Once you read this, you will understand that Kieren is right - the >general people are not interested ICANN. (and you can put here who is) >The "general people" treat ICANN as their GSM phone company - they >are neither happy nor unhappy that it works. They just use their >phones. And if their phones are outside of the coverage area, they >don't start calling the company and asking what's wrong (you see - >their phones don't work; how can they do that) but find a way to deal >with that, e.g. move a few feet away to get reception, or just ignore >their phones. > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 6 22:42:47 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:42:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> Dan, to many of your questions you will find answers in the ICANN meeting scripts. However, I have to disagree with you on that: >I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally >ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. If those, who are "right" never want to spend time and help ICANN achieve its goals, change, perform better, etc., etc., then they are not the "right" ones. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 6 23:10:56 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:10:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: >Veni, > >The missing link here is still that ICANN outreach probably does not make >an effort to connect the techie details to issues of general public >interest. Can you point me to the ads themselves anywhere? I'd like to >see what they contained. see attached. Quarter page in the front section of adverts in the economist. Adam >General journalists are generally not experienced enough to make >connections between techie details and public interest, but they are there >(though many insiders at ICANN seem to want to systematically shield that >reality from non-experts). > >It could simply be that all the ads were ineffective at informing a general >public of the connection to their public interest. > >The "general people" should not even treat the phone company as "their >phone company" these days. The net neutrality movement in the U.S. is >making some headway there. > >It's a difficult thing to explain how these policy developments at ICANN >affect general public interests, but when they are actually explained in a >way that general public people can understand, it does increasingly make a >difference. > >I have a hard time believing that the ads had any potential at being >effective in this regard. I don't know whether those writing/designing the >ads simply didn't have the expertise to do it right, or intentionally tried >to obscure the connection, but I suspect that one or both of these things >may have compromised the potential effectiveness of the ads. > >Also, ad placements have to be widespread and consistent over time. >One-shots have little effect compared to ongoing campaigns, especially if >they are general in nature (adverstising ICANN as an institution rather >than advertising specific policy-making process that the public ought to >pay attention to). > >Advertising is not automatically effective if it is poorly targeted, >conceived, designed and placed. If those were the problems, then one >cannot claim that there was effective advertising in the first place. > >In the experimental sciences, we call this "systematic error" in the >experimental process. Of course, it help to have professional experts in >the area where one is experimenting, in order to design and execute a valid >experiment. > >Do the people who were designing the ad campaign have professional >expertise in advertising and marketing, as well as enough expertise >available in both the technological and policy aspects of the pitch to get >the right message together for the right audience(s)? > >I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally >ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. > >Dan > > >At 10:04 PM -0400 9/6/07, veni markovski wrote: >>Dan, >> >>you are missing one minor, but important point, which should be in >>the foundation when we talk about public interest in the work of >>ICANN. See below. >> >>At 18:45 9/6/2007 -0700, Dan Krimm wrote: >> >>>If you don't know to type-in "icann public comment" into Google, why would >>>anyone even know or think to do so? It takes a separate promotional >>>channel to get the word out generally, so that "general people" have even >>>the first reason to explore in the first place. >> >>Last year the NomCom circulated widely information about its work, >>and the fact there's a nomination window opened. This included, but >>was not limited, to Internet web sites, ads in the Economist, the >>International Herald Tribune (check >>http://www.icann.org/meetings/marrakech/captioning-nomcomm-29jun06.htm >>) Here's what George Sadowsky said: >> >>"In recruitment, we're trying some new things this year. What's on the screen >>is advert that appeared in "The Economist" I think it was about two weeks >>ago. It was a quarter page advertisement and we are fortunately receiving a >>few statements of interest, or at least receiving some interest as a result >>of this. >>And we are also going to place an advertisement in the "International Herald >>Tribune" probably next week. > >These things have to be tried. We are looking at ways to reach out beyond >>the ICANN community, and hopefully we are learning from new ways to do >>outreach and recruitment. " >> >>and then read this: >>http://www.icann.org/meetings/saopaulo/captioning-icannpublicforumpt2-07dec06.htm >> >>"WE USE THE ICANN FAMILY VERY HEAVILY FOR RECRUITING. >>WE TRIED ADVERTISING THIS YEAR, AND IT DIDN'T PAY OFF. >>WE ATTENDED A NUMBER OF MEETINGS, BOTH ICANN AND RELATED MEETINGS, >>AND WERE VOCAL AND PRESENT -- VISIBLE IN ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES >>FOR LEADERSHIP WITHIN ICANN. >>WE DISTRIBUTED WIDELY A FLIER DESCRIBING THE POSITIONS." >> >> >>Once you read this, you will understand that Kieren is right - the >>general people are not interested ICANN. (and you can put here who is) >>The "general people" treat ICANN as their GSM phone company - they >>are neither happy nor unhappy that it works. They just use their >>phones. And if their phones are outside of the coverage area, they >>don't start calling the company and asking what's wrong (you see - >>their phones don't work; how can they do that) but find a way to deal >>with that, e.g. move a few feet away to get reception, or just ignore >>their phones. >> >>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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: econ.tiff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 90676 bytes Desc: not available URL: From email at hakik.org Thu Sep 6 23:30:00 2007 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:30:00 +0600 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed u> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <200709070324.l873OJNo032626@bids.sdnbd.org> Milton & Jeanette: Couldn't refrain from making comments but agreeing with you. Most of developing country people are deprived of connectivity, and unless they are not online, CIR issues are futile to them. This issue is rather important to them only who are facing this challenge for decades, and have been discussed so many times that it has lost its importance. Perhaps, time has come again to shade some thoughts on this perspective and progress onwards. A majority of the world population (but voiceless) belongs to this group, please keep in mind, to sort out this issue, will demand reaching out far beyond regulatory, policy, IPv4/IPv6, socio-economic, culture, and certainly money issues. Best regards, Hakik At 05:37 AM 9/7/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > > Internet Governance. > >It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately >reporting what she hears, not what she believes. > >And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it >at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room >full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing >countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about >development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the >room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had >raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South >Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of >dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > >The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing >internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing >telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would >just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately >translate into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net >value of about US$ 230,000. > >I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. >It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous >investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and >Japan that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be >that IGP's criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital >markets, raising the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on >bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. > >Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, >we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old >regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. >And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc >size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not >relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly >relevant to developing countries, who will be the primary source of >demand for address space in the years to come. > >Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from >multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > >Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > >The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and >dichotomies. But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who >attempt to discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who >are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to >say about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside >from showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. >There are really meaty policy issues there. > >As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own >domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world >where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain >name market have been written in the USA. More important than the >geographic source of the rules is their substance: are they >efficient, do they encourage competition, are they equitable? >Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real >discussion of these issues. > >--Milton Mueller > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: >9/6/2007 8:36 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 -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 6 23:27:31 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:27:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? Message-ID: <750444.59941.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I have to say I sit more on Veni's side than Dan's here. Dan raised a lot of critical points, many which should be explored further to see if an outreach programme can reach a wider audience. But surely it's not just up to ICANN themselves to be in touch with all interest groups? I would have thought those with an interest in ICANN should also be spreading the word on what is happening. An example here could be how Al Gore's environmental message is being spread around the world. Al's been to Britain and Australia recently and taught people how to give his presentation so they can then go and spread the gospel according to Al. I believe he's done this in the US too. The internet makes it easy to get the word out, but it also makes it easy for people to put their name to a cause they know next-to-nothing about. I've also worked on a number of investigations with steering groups or similar with NGOs or government. It's always been encouraged and/or assumed that these representatives are consulting with their wider constituencies. I can't think of any inquiry or investigation that has ever gotten out to all the people affected. In Australia, I think every week there is an advertisement on page 2 or 4 of at least one national newspaper on what senate inquiries are on every week. So it's bloody easy for people to find out about what's going on. But do they? I'd expect the short answer is no. I also subscribe to the view that a petition is next to useless. How do you know the person has even got themselves across the issue and really know what they are signing up to? As an example, how many people actually read terms and conditions before signing up to something online, or even offline. And with a petition, if the heading looks appealing, people just sign it. As I'm writing this, I'm now wondering if one way to assist in getting the word out would be if ICANN and/or others would fund (partially or wholly) the expenses of those who are trying to spread the word and get involvement from wider constituencies. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: veni markovski To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Friday, 7 September, 2007 12:42:47 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? Dan, to many of your questions you will find answers in the ICANN meeting scripts. However, I have to disagree with you on that: >I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally >ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. If those, who are "right" never want to spend time and help ICANN achieve its goals, change, perform better, etc., etc., then they are not the "right" ones. 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Sep 6 23:28:26 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:28:26 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <46E0C55A.9020600@cavebear.com> Kieren McCarthy wrote: > The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly. Which is quite a different thing than saying that the general public is not deeply affected by ICANN's work. And from that hangs tale and a lesson for internet governance: That to be effective internet governance must remain legitimate in the eyes of its beneficiaries, the community of internet users. And to obtain and retain such legitimacy, bodies of internet governance must do more than merely provide web-based bulletin boards that go unread and unanswered by those who actually get to make choices. To obtain and retain legitimacy a body of internet governance must actually consider and respond, and be seen considering and responding, to the questions and opinions it receives. When I was on the ICANN board, I received a lot of input. Much of it was diffuse or unclear. I had to spend time interacting with people to comprehend what they were saying, discovering what it was they were actually trying to express. The absence of even that minimal level of feedback from ICANN - feedback needed to clarify what the comments mean - suggests that commentary to ICANN is commentary wasted. The public once had a partial but vibrant voice in ICANN. ICANN strangled it and replaced it with a company puppet that remains alive only through financial life support from ICANN. So it is no wonder that the general public stays away from ICANN. New bodies of internet governance should be structurally obligated to meaningfully interact with, and respond to public input. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Thu Sep 6 23:53:01 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:53:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46E0CB1D.9080607@cavebear.com> veni markovski wrote: > If those, who are "right" never want to spend time and help ICANN > achieve its goals, change, perform better, etc., etc., then they are not > the "right" ones. "never"? That strikes me as a rather unjustifiable pejorative against so many good people who have spent so much time and effort over the years. To provide just one quantitative instance: My direct, unreimbursed costs of trying to help ICANN achieve its goals during my 30 months as an ICANN director amounted to several hundred thousand dollars (US). One other director at that time estimated his drect and unreimbursed losses from being on the board at around the same level: $300,000 per year. My indirect costs were at least order of magnitude greater. And that does not count the rather significant amount that was expended to go to court ICANN's unlawful actions when it tried to muzzle a director who merely wanted to look, as he was empowered to do by law, at ICANN's financial books. Of course, there are those, some of whom might be in the employ of ICANN, who might say that I wasn't trying to "help" ICANN. Such a comment would, of course, be entirely untrue. The lesson one can draw here for internet governance is that the debates can easily grind down to a level in which valid points of view are dismissed because they are labeled, simply because they do not hew the company line, as unconstructive. So, for new institutions of internet governance, it seems that we need to find ways to require that the institution fully consider all input, no matter the source, without bias or prejudgement. That has always been a difficult problem for governance bodies. One of the best methods to counteract the natural siege mentality of such bodies is to provide a continuous fresh flow of new faces and a mechanism through which those who are affected, in our case the members of the community of internet users, can recall decision makers who are unresponsive either immediately or on some periodic basis. --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 guru at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 00:20:21 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:50:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070907042034.696356782A@smtp1.electricembers.net> McTim seems to suggest that the 'threat to internet community' is a non-issue - he says " In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that they complain is "captured". The original quote on this came from Vittorio, quoting Parminder's mail: "Quoting Vittorio's earlier comment on the discussion on IGC taking a pro-active role to come up with IGF mandate and structure related proposals >finding a way to implement the mandate that is not threatening to the Internet community, and ensuring some clarity, transparency and >democracy in the internal procedures of the IGF." Not trying to hairsplit here, but the comment originated from a person who is engaged with the current IG structures. Meaning that it does seem a very real apprehension on part of many (see also mails from Jeanette & Avri) that changes to the current dispensation may be negative. So instead of dismissing this fear, or the views of people who appear to want to disturb hornets nests, it would be better to discuss the issue on the list. My response on your comments: "2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner. If anyone wants to participate in these discussions and policy deliberations, they can". While I appreciate the spirit of the statement, we should also acknowledge that participation in many or most of these deliberations can be afforded only by select populations and groups. What would be your guess on the representation on ICANN structures of people from the developed countries and business interests and in contrast from developing countries and development sector within these countries? Also the norms of these discussions seem to be set in particular manners that are not really open (see mails from Karl Auerbach in past and current discussions on ICANN agenda/proceedings). Maybe you can explain how the mandate of ICANN was decided, by what bottom up democratic process? What were the motivations and ideologies behind such framing? Or what do you think are the implications of ICANN finally being subject to USG Department of Commerce jurisdiction? The current structures are by definition de-facto, but don't seem to be de-jure (using law in the sense of what seems to be just and fair). "3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to me". We are in complex new governance spaces. The clarity on how we could move forward towards ideal IG structures will emerge as we discuss, negotiate and are open. It would be presumption to deny the possibility of binding conclusions, or atleast broad consensus to start with. As I said in my earlier mail, this kind of a perspective on whether the effort is worth it or not, is a function of where you are situated - within the current power structures, or outside. For those in the cold could take the other extreme view that any move away from the current structures would be towards democratization of the IG spaces. Maybe we need to try and locate ourselves somewhere in between .... And keep moving. One real danger is that people who want to negotiate a greater role for themselves begin to think that this won't happen through dialogue since the others are not inclined to even open up a process of discussion. That could start the nightmarish scenario that Karl warned in his mail ... Of stratifications and divisions in the internet and therefore of the information society into various kinds of fiefdoms.... Of becoming cynical of the process of dialogue and stopping engagement. Guru -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:42 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; carlos a. afonso; JeanetteHofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? On 9/6/07, Parminder wrote: > > McTim wrote: > > > > somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) somebody from the RIR > > > communities (Alain Aina?) somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. > > > Amour? Brian Carpenter?) somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) > > > somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) somebody > > > from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?) > > > Also one may wonder why so many who thought and opined (judging from their > organizational affiliations) that CIR was not important to discuss at the > IGF and we shd instead be discussing 'access', Probably because it's more important? till CIR finally came on the > agenda despite them, are now keen to be speakers on the CIR issue (or, > rather, others are keen on their behalf). now it's on the agenda, I assumed that usefulness of speakers would be directly related to their knowledge and experience in these areas. Carlos, I can certainly suggest folk from south of the Equator if needed, since I live ON the Equator, I see folk from North and South. > > Is it that while they still think CIRs do not constitute an important area > of public policy to discuss at the IGF, they need to be there to counter > some conspiratorial attempts that may be made using the avenue of open > discussions on CIRs. In this case, in line with my email on 'who is afraid > of the IGF', lets discuss those fears and 'conspiracy designs' openly than > through some proxy arguments in the main session on CIRs. This will make for > much more transparent, informed and possibly fruitful discussions rather > than hearing on and on the assertion that CIR governance is a special case > that needs to be shielded from public policy. > I have never been less than open in sharing my views. At the risk of boring the list again, they include: 1) CIRs do not include names (with the exception of .arpa) 2) CIR policy is decided in an open, bottom up manner. If anyone wants to participate in these discussions and policy deliberations, they can. 3) Creating a new forum to debate these issues without any possibility of reaching binding conclusions seems like a wasteful duplication of effort to me. In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join the Internet community 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 00:20:56 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:20:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Veni, I'm not really sure what you mean by this: >If those, who are "right" never want to spend time and help ICANN >achieve its goals, change, perform better, etc., etc., then they are >not the "right" ones. I spent a lot of time this past spring and summer putting a *lot* of time into participation in ICANN, on behalf of NCUC (Whois WG and KTCN campaign). I never would have had such time available if I had not be out of a job and looking for a new one. I wouldn't bother commenting at all if I didn't care about ICANN improving itself. And even if you consider my comments "abrasive" somehow, they are ultimately intended constructively, perhaps as a sort of "tough love" -- for the Internet at least, if not necessarily for every aspect of ICANN's policies. The first step to constructive change is to abandon the denial of what could be wrong with the current setup. Only then can one explore what might solve the problems, but it helps to have professionals doing professional jobs (whether those jobs are paid or not -- many at ICANN are not, but a good number are). You don't see me calling for ICANN to abolish itself, but you do see me asking it to constrain itself to what it has reasonable institutional capacity (and strategic placement [and perhaps informal collegial authority] in the policy world) to address productively. The fact is, ICANN has gotten my attention (thanks to Robin and Milton, credit where credit's due). Not all critics are trying abjectly to tear down the institution, and to conflate them leads one to ignore potential information that might lead to improvement, purely on the basis of personal animosity. ICANN needs to get over the criticism and simply be honest about evaluating what doesn't work in the current setup, because otherwise it'll never even *try* to fix it. That would lead to the triumph of ego over rationality and progress, which would be a shame. _ _ _ _ _ That said, with regard to the specific case of directing an external ad campaign, which is what this part of the thread is about, I would *not* be the "right" one myself, because even the experience I have does not rise to the level of professional specific expertise with regard to advertising and marketing as a focus of job duties. I've seen a few professionals do that sort of work, and they have professional instincts and skills that I don't have. That's not my professional training, and I would never try to pass myself off as such. But if I were appropriately experienced and wanted to do that job, then I'd expect to get paid competitively on staff to do it! :-) If you want to devise an ad campaign, you get an advertising/marketing professional expert to lead the process, and give that person the resources to really understand the ICANN-specific issues from both the technical and public policy sides (it's unlikely that any one person would have that triple-play expertise at a professional enough level to do the job effectively -- it would have to be a coordinated and integrated team effort bringing together individuals with those varying skills). _ _ _ _ _ Public governance in a democracy is an inherently messy proposition. There's a lot of "riff-raff" to be dealt with, because there are a lot of disagreements in general public policy that you'll *never* possibly get away from. It *cannot* become a clean process, because power politics are inherently messy. There is no silver bullet to clean it up and never will be. ICANN is addressing areas of fundamental policy disagreement in its policy ambitions, and there is simply no way to avoid the mess. It comes with the package. So either ICANN must accept the mess for what it is, or it should step away from the contentious issues and stick to the clean ones (the narrow technical concerns that have a better chance for discovering consensus). You ain't gonna square the circle, believe me. If ICANN keeps trying to do that, it is setting itself up for systematic failure at the outset (and then the only question is whether or not it will be able to impose that failure on the entire Internet, and thus the entire world). Ignore that truth, and ICANN will doom itself (and possibly the rest of us) to that sad fate. All I'm trying to do here is help ICANN steer a path that does not lead to self (and perhaps broader) destruction. I can't help ICANN to recognize this. Only ICANN can help itself. I guess that really means the staff and the Board. Meanwhile I need to find a paying job. All this pro bono work takes up a lot of time (and in some circles it beefs up the resume, though I expect perhaps not inside ICANN) but doesn't pay the bills, because I don't get a salary from IPJ or NCUC. Now, don't be ungrateful for all this volunteer work I've expended on behalf of improving ICANN policy... ;-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Sep 7 00:55:29 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:55:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? Message-ID: >Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:10:56 +0900 >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >From: Adam Peake > >Veni, > >>The missing link here is still that ICANN outreach probably does not make >>an effort to connect the techie details to issues of general public >>interest. Can you point me to the ads themselves anywhere? I'd like to >>see what they contained. > >see attached. Quarter page in the front section of adverts in the economist. How in the world does this appeal for a few particular NomCom volunteers have *anything* to do with soliciting general public input into ICANN policy-making process? I don't see any connection. Not all ads are equal -- apples and oranges. Each one should have a specific purpose and be designed and placed to achieve that specific purpose. Each can fail in a myriad of ways having to do with internal mistakes. How about advertising the policy process that are in action at ICANN, with calendars for when public comment periods open up (and close), and where to find the web pages for the comments and the processes? (And, how about a clear, non-jargony explanation of what the policies are about, and how they affect the general public?) This particular ad is an invitation to apply to become an unpaid volunteer for ICANN helping to select candidates for positions that have utterly no meaning to ICANN outsiders at all. Very few members of the general public have the time or would qualify for this, and hardly anyone is going to click on the URL to get more details about something that sounds so arcane -- whoever wrote the copy of this ad made no attempt to try to understand the target audience and craft a message that they would even *recognize*, not to mention *respond* to. Mistake #1 in marketing. This is not a general-public ad in the first place. This ad is about attracting a few individuals into a deep form of internal ICANN participation, and does not relate at all to the public comment process on specific policies. If one expects this to have any relationship to ads that solicit public comments on matters of public policy, then that makes no sense. There's no connection whatsoever. But further, if this ad got few responses, it may be because there is no context for people who aren't already familiar with ICANN, and/or no substantive motivation as to what the value of participating in this way is. If you don't already know what kinds of specific policies ICANN addresses (other than "the Internet's intriguing technical coordination problems" that support "the success and stability of an essential global resource" then this communicates absolutely nothing to a potential volunteer. This is exactly my point. This is a beautiful example of an intrinsically ineffective ad, unless perhaps it would have been placed in a *jobs section* or something. What a waste. The reason people in the general public ought to be interested in ICANN is that ICANN's policies affect people *well beyond merely supporting the technical stability* of the Internet. If ICANN can't get past that deep conceptual error, then there is no hope of attracting general public interest. You've already sealed your fate before you've gotten out of the blocks. An "internationally coordinated multi-stakeholder organization that serves as a major technical coordination body for the Internet" doesn't sound like anything that addresses any interesting issues of public policy. Oh, and please, try my wonderful over-cooked unseasoned brussels-sprouts. Yum. But then, this particular NomCom role requires people to be qualified in several ways that most people are not (though those requirements are not stated in the ad -- robust professional network among Internet governance community, etc.). I mean, c'mon. *C'mon*! 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: econ.tiff Type: application/octet-stream Size: 90676 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 01:48:34 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:48:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Has anyone else noticed we are WAY OT here?? The subject line of this thread is: Speakers for IGF - ideas? Perhaps it's my fault (if so I can't apologise enough) for kicking off all this blather about ICANN, when I suggested: _somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?)_ If you notice ICANN has very little to do with most of these CIR policy areas, Yet again....ICANN is sucking all the "heat and light" from the discussion. Can we please refocus this thread on speakers?? I am the only one who has pitched a short list (withthe exception of MM who pitched USG reps). Can we keep the other discussion in the other thread please? -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 01:54:43 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:24:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709060511r3be80e54u41737c21e0247fb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070907055444.C0B5D67859@smtp1.electricembers.net> As a further proof, if it was indeed required, of the threat some actors feel on the matter of discussing CIR governance, in the new draft program, while in other thematic areas the text directly goes to issues involved – in the area of CIRs there is a specific mention that “The purpose of the discussion is to bring out information and opinion”. It is almost funny . What is it supposed to mean and what then is the purpose of discussions in other sessions . what is it that the draft program is trying to foreclose that someone may not pull out a gun or something ! Why don’t these people directly spell out what are they afraid of. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From avri at psg.com Fri Sep 7 02:30:24 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:30:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 7 sep 2007, at 02.41, Danny Younger wrote: > After the Council finished their discussion on the > report's principles, recommendations and > implementation elements they proceeded directly to a > vote without any structured discussion of the public > comments -- the formal review of the public comments > as mandated by the agenda never happened. i disagree with this assessment. the review was done before walking through recommendations as opposed to after that. but having listened to the whole call, i expect you know that. i thought it was important that the set of views be known before we went through each of the recommendations. we also brought up the comments during the discussions. perhaps the discussion wasn't as focused on the comments as you would like, but as has been said by others, those comments are not only part of the record, they are part of the materials that board will be able to consider in deciding whether they agree with the recommendations. and it will the board's option to send the package, or any one oof the recommendations back to the council to ask for clarification or to tell us to do further work. i know you think the council should have thrown out several of the recommendations based on public comments. it is true, the public comments did not serve as a veto. but i do deny that the council members were not aware of the comments and did not consider them in casting their votes. i expect the board will also consider them. i do think that ICANN's GNSO policy development process needs to be fixed and needs to incorporate the review of public comments much earlier in the process. and there are better ways of incorporating public views into the process. but i deny the accusation that the GNSO council doesn't care or does not listen. 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 Sep 7 03:30:02 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 00:30:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <335010.14812.qm@web52201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thanks for this clarification, Avri. So it sounds like the vote was to pass the report through to the Board for the Los Angeles meeting. One wonders exactly how the Board will consider and account for the public comments, of course. Is there a formal requirement for the Board to account for public comments, and if so what formal role do the public comments play in the Board decision? Can the Board simply ignore them if it chooses, or does it need to provide some formal response to the comments in the course of making its decision? I'm not sure these details are described anywhere on the ICANN web site. If so I don't know where. One wonders what the chances are of convincing the Board to send (parts of) this policy back for further work. Perhaps a petition is in fact no less effective than these public comments. Thanks, Dan PS -- Apologies to McTim for continuing this thread under this subject heading, but it keeps it intact for better or worse. FWIW, Kieren started this sub-thread, after generic discussions of CIRs, making specific the ICANN reference, following a comment apparently of yours: > In short, there is nothing "threatening the Internet Community", > that's rhetoric coming from folk unwilling to join the process that > they complain is "captured". If CS feels strongly enough about this, > there is only one way to reverse this "capture", and that is to join > the Internet community fora. And so on... Maybe that would have been a good time to change the subject header, but too late... At 8:30 AM +0200 9/7/07, Avri Doria wrote: >On 7 sep 2007, at 02.41, Danny Younger wrote: > >> After the Council finished their discussion on the >> report's principles, recommendations and >> implementation elements they proceeded directly to a >> vote without any structured discussion of the public >> comments -- the formal review of the public comments >> as mandated by the agenda never happened. > > >i disagree with this assessment. > >the review was done before walking through recommendations as opposed >to after that. but having listened to the whole call, i expect you >know that. i thought it was important that the set of views be known >before we went through each of the recommendations. we also brought >up the comments during the discussions. perhaps the discussion >wasn't as focused on the comments as you would like, but as has been >said by others, those comments are not only part of the record, they >are part of the materials that board will be able to consider in >deciding whether they agree with the recommendations. and it will >the board's option to send the package, or any one oof the >recommendations back to the council to ask for clarification or to >tell us to do further work. > >i know you think the council should have thrown out several of the >recommendations based on public comments. it is true, the public >comments did not serve as a veto. but i do deny that the council >members were not aware of the comments and did not consider them in >casting their votes. i expect the board will also consider them. > >i do think that ICANN's GNSO policy development process needs to be >fixed and needs to incorporate the review of public comments much >earlier in the process. and there are better ways of incorporating >public views into the process. but i deny the accusation that the >GNSO council doesn't care or does not listen. > >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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 03:33:48 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:03:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'access' important (vis a vis CIRs) or is it MNCs telecom businesses Message-ID: <20070907073350.C6BA5A6CA1@smtp2.electricembers.net> This is especially for all those who have passionately argued that 'access' was more important than CIRs to discuss at the IGF. I count on their support to take up this matter with the IGF secretariat. In the new draft program ( www.intgovforum.org/ ) under the theme "access" two important points which were there in the earlier drafts (enclosed) have mysteriously disappeared. These are "Market and non-market structures and their relationship to competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative business models" and "Public Infrastructure and the role of public and private finance in providing access". As one can see both the formulations were already quite balanced taking all different .perspectives into consideration. So, what is the justification in removing them? These issues had come on the agenda because of civil society inputs. Who would have been instrumental in removing them? Significantly, this removal has happened while the list of points in each theme has actually become longer. Such one-sided ideological distortions are being smuggled into the agenda of global public policy bodies that have a professed principal orientation to development, when so many cities in the US and Europe are employing public funds for wireless connectivity, and many studies indicate that countries like the US which has no or shrinking government role and light regulation polices are falling behind in broadband vis a vis countries with greater public sector role (Korea and Singapore) and stronger regulation (Japan). This is regarding developed countries, as for developed countries many studies, and much project experience, have shown that non-market interventions are key to reaching the benefit of the Internet to all. And most developing countries are already doing something in this regard (India, for instance). It is also important to note that, despite all these policy/ practice changes within the developed countries, they still keep giving the prescription to developing countries of the keeping the public sector and more proactive regulation away from the telecom sector, which of course is not for serving connectivity objectives but the business interests of telecom multi-nationals. Why should even a discussion of non market structures (such community based structures are mentioned in the WSIS docs, and this came from civil society contributions to the text), alternative business models and the role of public finance for connectivity (also mentioned in WSIS docs on basis of CS inputs) taken off the table even as indicative possible areas of discussion at the IGF, while they were there in the earlier versions of the draft program. Who are these actors who are so over active to determine the agenda at the IGF subverting all 'progressive' possibilities, and where are the representations and the perspectives of civil society. What does it say about the balance of power in the IGF? Who, one may ask in this light, is supposed to be more threatened by the way IGF agenda is being determined? So one wonders if it is the MNC telecom operators huge business potential in developing countries that is important or really the access for the disadvantaged. Why did those who were so passionate about 'access' when the issue of CIRs was sought to be discussed remain silent when these subjects of vital importance for ensuring access to the disadvantaged, and which have also been mentioned in WSIS texts, were excluded. Indeed, we all know that those who actually would have been instrumental in removing these subjects were a strong part of the 'access is more important than CIRs' lobby. If this is the way the CS involved in the IG is able to represent the interests and struggles of wider CS constituencies, we shouldn't be surprised if we have low credibility with them, and they doubtful of joining us. This kind of agenda rigging is very disappointing. And we continue to have development as the main and the overarching theme the forthcoming IGF meeting, as it was at Athens.. Excuse me to use strong language but I think whoever is responsible for this needs to be a little less hypocritical. And Jeanette, this, incidentally, is a good proof of the power of the MAG. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DraftProgramme.13.06.2007-4.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 57253 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Fri Sep 7 05:09:03 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:09:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF In-Reply-To: <46DFC7C6.8020202@wzb.eu> References: <20070906083558.A18DA67905@smtp1.electricembers.net> <46DFC7C6.8020202@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46E1152F.3060709@bertola.eu> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > Hi, > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this > protection. > > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > simply lack legitimacy to do so. I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and especially picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not have any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit more of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain (limited) steering role for the IGF process. In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, er, "dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership (constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both from the membership and from the representative side. The membership feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g. see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it whenever there is momentum to do so. However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder to think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our future role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and to how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every two months. -- 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 guru at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 05:37:09 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:07:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20070907093709.C0691E1CE0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either or' situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at the cost of discussing access. Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not any less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me it is obvious that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to meaningful provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe that the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the rest, who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' and 'good intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse? It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the current arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio. On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth :-) Guru IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities www.ITforChange.net | A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he likes.~Thomas Huxley~ -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > -----Original Message----- > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > Internet Governance. It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes. And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who will be the primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues there. As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been written in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules is their substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. --Milton Mueller No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 07:29:47 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:29:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46E0C55A.9020600@cavebear.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46E0C55A.9020600@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46e1364b.0f1d640a.07b8.ffffeb5d@mx.google.com> Karl, At 20:28 9/6/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Kieren McCarthy wrote: > >>The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly. > >Which is quite a different thing than saying that the general public >is not deeply affected by ICANN's work. Yes, it is different. And the problem is that only some people see the difference. The general public doesn't know ICANN exists (and that's good - means ICANN is doing its job), and doesn't care about ICANN. Of course, you have to remember that the general publis is not only the citizens of the USA, who have different views on democracy than the rest of the world, as we all would agree. So, I don't think it's the lack of directly elected representative that makes the general public ignorent about ICANN. It's the new culture, the Internet culture, which makes that knowledge irrelevant for the people. It has meaning only for a few experts and geeks, besides the people who have some (business) interest in the ICANN work. It's just a different time today, on the Internet; the old political culture has not that meaning as it used to, and people have to adequately address that, if they want to reach broader audiences. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 07:33:27 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:33:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46E0CB1D.9080607@cavebear.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> <46E0CB1D.9080607@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46e13776.0c1e640a.2a67.ffffddd7@mx.google.com> At 20:53 9/6/2007 -0700, Karl wrote: >"never"? That strikes me as a rather unjustifiable pejorative >against so many good people who have spent so much time and effort >over the years. You've omitted the quote I left intentionally: >I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally >ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. Obviously these "right people" include you, me, and everyone else, who has served in one or another capacity at ICANN. veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 07:36:27 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:36:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46e138a2.101d640a.13c2.ffffd8c0@mx.google.com> At 21:20 9/6/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Veni, > >I'm not really sure what you mean by this: > > >If those, who are "right" never want to spend time and help ICANN > >achieve its goals, change, perform better, etc., etc., then they are > >not the "right" ones. I think if you've asked me a question, I'd have responded. Instead you are telling me what you've done. I don't doubt you spend time, as other people do, on ICANN-related issues. But you said: >I have my doubts. Not to criticize anyone personally, but institutionally >ICANN may not be getting the right people in place to do this sort of job. And I wonder - why don't you join ICANN through the NomCom, and see if you are one of the "right people"? Otherwise, it's always easier to criticize. 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 Fri Sep 7 07:41:58 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:41:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> At 21:55 9/6/2007 -0700, you wrote: >This is exactly my point. This is a beautiful example of an intrinsically >ineffective ad, unless perhaps it would have been placed in a *jobs >section* or something. What a waste. Ah, so now this is a waste. If there are no ads, then the criticism is "why there are no ads". If there are ads, it changes to "what a waste". You remind me of this case, where the prosecution talked to the judge, and the judge said, "You are right". Then the defendant spoke, and the judge said "You are right". Then the court clerk said, "But, your honor, it's not possible for both parties to be right!", and the judge said, "You know, you are also right". btw, the robust professional network among Internet governance community is not a requirement to serve on the ICANN Board or any of the other Councils. I am not sure that it may not be better, if the "ICANN community" was also subject to terms, as the directors are. 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 09:27:41 2007 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 06:27:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <451840.4932.qm@web52210.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Re: the review was done before walking through recommendations as opposed to after that. Sorry, but a 90-second synopsis of the public comments by a member of ICANN Staff at the GNSO Council meeting does not suffice to do justice to the many valid points raised by the broader internet community. My assessment is that no matter what input was received the GNSO Council would have continued on its set path because it has become totally schedule-bound. All of your activities are designed to conclude in conjunction with ICANN plenary sessions. It matters little that your work is not complete, that you have deliberately overlooked the lack of mechanisms to deal with abusive registrations (pointed out to you by the Business Constituency), and that little-to-no-time was spent on allocation methodologies (what experts did the Council ever interview on the topic of auctions?). The only thing that the Council seems hell-bent on accomplishing is wrapping up a report by a set date whether finished or not. The entire point of public comments is to allow for the possibility of corrections/adjustments etc. Instead, the GNSO Council decided to charge ahead with a "public-be-damned" attitude and offered up a shoddy report (that rarely offers a rationale for its recommendations) as a fait accompli. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 09:56:44 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:56:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU Report References: <451840.4932.qm@web52210.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D91E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Just FYI, this is how the ITU sees the new world :-))) http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/reg/D-REG-TTR.9-2007-SUM-PDF-E.pdf 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 10:41:08 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 20:11:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF In-Reply-To: <46E1152F.3060709@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070907144116.13F75E1D07@smtp3.electricembers.net> Vittorio, Thanks for starting this subject line which I think is important. > > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > > I agree with you on this. I will request further clarification of the implications of this new line of argument which is being advanced. First of all, it is obvious that no one is suggesting and/or offering any > > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > policy processes to CS, and so I am unable to understand what is it that Jeanette and you are referring to here. I asked Jeanette specifically, but she never came back. Do you NOT want CS to be part of any policy structure whatsoever, because the question of whom and how do we represent will come up everywhere? I can theoretically understand that position since I know people who hold such a view, but I haven't associated this position with most IGC members, especially the more active ones. They have actively been involved in policy processes in the last few years, influencing it in many ways. What has happened now, suddenly? Why did they all accept the membership of WGIG, for instance? I know that many proposals for an IGF kind of forum were made which had various kinds of decisions/ recommendation powers for it (One such proposal was made you also, Vittorio). Why did they make all inputs into WSIS processes, which was an exercise of political power on behalf of CS? On whose behalf, and with what legitimacy, was all that power/influence exercised? Do they have absolute faith that they were doing it in, and seen by others in, strictly their individual capacity? And what does individual capacity really mean in structures like the WGIG and IGF MAG where the composition is multistakeholder by quota, and in WSIS where there are only that many CS speaking slots. I will like to know what has changed now? It is that at that time there was this convenience of thinking that all CS thought alike, so power could be exercised in various ways, because the objectives were common and necessarily good for all... Is it that the IG CS structures cannot come to terms that there are people with different interests and worldviews, and we may need to discuss things internally a lot, and try to inch forward through labored consensus...(Governments, with very different perspectives do it all the time. That's politics.) How is it that while till now CS always seem to have called for a legitimate share in policy structures - which means a share in power structures - though understanding that complex issues of what can and cannot be legitimate arenas of CS involvement, and complexities of legitimizing representation, is a complex set of issues, and progress can only be made on this incrementally, through various innovations. We went through the whole WSIS phase with this belief, and CS works outside IS arena dealing with these complexities, with good overall effectiveness. But they do not give up their ideals, objectives and therefore the necessary politics because the means and structures of their activity are less than perfect. Why are we now calling for an empty shell IGF and further, even an empty shell IGC, ceasing all substantive outputs, and all politics. This new prescription of CS distrusting itself on how will it exercise power (we didn't distrust ourselves all this while)and spending time on perfecting empty processes (like kids cant be given real things to play with) in the IGF MAG and IGC itself is strange.... I will like to see what other stakeholders will say to this... other than be thoroughly amused. But they will be happy and feel justified. That's exactly what they said about CS all the while in resisting multistakeholder processes with CS representation. I recognize the need to perfect processes, and the nature of legitimacy as well as effectiveness of CS processes is an ongoing issue - of discussion, of research and of practice - worldwide. But no one in the CS ever gave this suggestion that lets cease our substantive objectives, and our politics, till we perfect our processes (which, given the intrinsic nature of the CS will be never) I must also make this observation - hoping everyone takes it as a point of necessary argument and not directed against anyone - that one needs to ponder on who is that can afford to cease politics... It is that who is satisfied with the status quo. One who wants change - more pressingly that one wants it - cant afford to suspend politics just for process perfection. It is an easy thing to see. And I remember your comment, Vittorio, in the .xxx debate that no position in politics is really neutral. Neither then is the position of suspending politics. (In light the above, wonder what you mean by ">Perhaps our future > role should just be that of substance-neutral )" We who are in these spaces just for seeking structural changes in favours of the disadvantaged people are not going to agree to suspend politics. That's our main job here... About the present effectiveness of the IGC, we all have our concerns and hopes.Jeremy listed all those things which were discussed/ adopted here first and then taken up at by the IGF. we are doing fine on adopting common positions. We set up a four part agenda for the IGF and we are having workshops on all the four. We have an IGC sponsored and conducted workshop for the first tie at the IGC, and we expect to be able to raise the level of this workshop on 'IGF mandate' to become an annual feature. There are many other things we can quote.. So for those - Jeanette, Wolfgang and Vittorio, in recent emails - who are asking us to distrust our own involvement with power (a new suggestion I must say in light our strong flirtations with it during WSIS) and seek suspension of politics in order to perfect the processes for some future use, I must also tell that we may be killing (I know I am repeating it from an earlier email) an important global governance innovation which provides a important role for civil society, which we won after some struggle (also due to some external conditions). By abdicating at this moment, do we think the processes will wait for us to take up positions of influence in them. The cast for the IGF is being set now, and we need to see what gains can be wrested NOW, and not wait till the structures are set and we handed our portion. If we need to carve out positions of influence for CS we need to work now. And on whose behalf would we take the decision to suspend politics and not represent any substantive views.there is some kind of de facto representation that IGC has for the wider global CS which would trust that we keep some general CS perspectives and interests in mind - carving positions of substantive influence for the CS constituency is definitely one of them. As I/ we trust similarly CS actors involved in other arenas which affect us, but for which we may not have time/specialization, like WIPO, environment, peace and disarmament, etc. I know we have some deep differences in the IGC, but these can only be overcome by open discussion.. That's why I took the cue form your email about what 'threatens the internet community' and sought an open and frank discussion on it.. Equally people should seek explanations of what may happen if we do too close an involvement with some governments and how it impacts short and long term CS interests.. Abdication, I repeat, will itself be a political move. And I don't agree to it. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:39 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: Parminder > Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF > > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > > Hi, > > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal > > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of > > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it > > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of > > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a > > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in > > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this > > protection. > > > > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > > I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous > point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can > evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and especially > picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not have > any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit more > of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain (limited) > steering role for the IGF process. > > In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, er, > "dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership > (constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both > from the membership and from the representative side. The membership > feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and > every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example > because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The > representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls > for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members > complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality > is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the > fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very > egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g. > see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this > channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it > whenever there is momentum to do so. > > However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder to > think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our future > role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue > for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow > their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and to > how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier > and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective > statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every > two months. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 7 12:11:22 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 01:11:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: > >The general public aren't really interested in ICANN's work, sadly. How do you measure interest? ICANN is a popular issue in the press and always has been. Not a good measure of interest? 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 raul at lacnic.net Fri Sep 7 12:34:13 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:34:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed u> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> Milton: It is a very interesting mail. As somebody coming from a developing country, I can tell you that the attention to the issue of Critical Internet Resources is very low in my region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. In fact, it is very interesting the result of the survey conducted by ECLAC (Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/26998/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl If you click in results you will see that Internet Governance in general (expression associated mainly to the CIR) is very low ranked. There are different rankings but in all of the this issue is ranked about position 37 in the list or priorities for the region regardind Information Society. So, It is clear that most of people in developing countries don't care about that. It is interesting to see that the participation in the survey was very diverse and balanced with a lot of people from governmnets, civil society, private sector and academic sector. This survey will be the base for the desinging of the Regional Information Society next 3 years plan. A new version of the survey will be issued next week. Probably some government will bring the issue to the table again before the Regional conference in El Salvador in November and probably it will become part of the plan, but it will not happen because it was defined as a priority, that's clear. This is for commenting what you said about your experience in the meeting in Oxford. Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and development oriented issues are incompatibles and we can discuss abut only one of them. Clearly they are not. We can and we have to discuss both. But it is important to say that we have to discuss CIR because we think that it is important and we have to accept that saying that developing countries are worried about that is not a valid argument. You raised other point that is if CIR related issues are or are not important for developing countries. And I agree with your approach and with some of the examples that you use. I think that they are important and have important impact in developing countries. But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from developed countries, decided that this is important for developing countries despite de fact that those countrie don't identify these issues as important, we will be in the same situation that you criticized regarding Oxford meeting, and in fact my perception is that the participation of people from my region in IGF meeting in Rio will not be very large and most of us from LAC in Rio will be the "usual suspects" (including myself of course) . Hopefully I am wrong. So, we have to find out the balance. We can discuss anything but it is clear that most important issues for developing countries are those related with development. Should we stop to discuss CIR, no, but we can not use developing countries concerns as the justification for that. Is this important for Developing Countries? we think yes, but so, we have to work more for really engage them in the discussion and not let mainly people from the most developed part of the world, to decide based on what is their perception about developing countries needs. Raúl At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > > Internet Governance. > >It is important to point out that Jeanette is >just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes. > >And I have heard this argument many times >before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford >Internet Institute conference last year, where a >room full of British, Americans and Europeans >insisted that developing countries don't care >about the CIR issues, they care about >development and access. And when I pointed out >that no one in the room was from a developing >country, and that the parties who had raised the >issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, >South Africa, China and a other developing >countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > >The theory here seems to be that time and energy >spent discussing internet resource policy is >purchased at the expense of developing telecom >access facilities. So, for example, if Milton >Mueller would just shut up about ICANN for 30 >days, this would immediately translate into, oh, >230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > >I don't know whether the economics of this have >been worked out yet. It may be that my >interventions in ICANN require such enormous >investments in countermeasures from the USG, the >World Bank and Japan that funds are diverted >from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's >criticism of ICANN unsettles international >capital markets, raising the interest rate and >inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is >a topic for future GigaNet symposia. > >Anyway, in a period where we are about to run >out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a debate >on markets for IP addresses and the old regime >won't even consider it because it would upset >their control. And there are serious policy >debates even within IETF about the bloc size of >IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is >not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But >it is certainly relevant to developing >countries, who will be the primary source of >demand for address space in the years to come. > >Likewise, most growth in domain name markets >will come from multilingual new TLDs, which are >most relevant to developing countries. > >Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > >The challenge is indeed to move beyond old >divisions and dichotomies. But I am afraid that >the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to >discourage discussion of these issues, are the >ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. >They think there is nothing to say about this >but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. >Aside from showing a terrible lack of >imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues there. > >As physical access in developing countries >grows, and as their own domestic ISP market >increases in size, they will inherit a world >where the rules for getting IP addresses and >entering the domain name market have been >written in the USA. More important than the >geographic source of the rules is their >substance: are they efficient, do they encourage >competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio >we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. > >--Milton Mueller > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 >- Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 7 12:51:18 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:51:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF In-Reply-To: <20070907144116.13F75E1D07@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070907144116.13F75E1D07@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46E18186.6090703@wzb.eu> Parminder schrieb: > > > Vittorio, > > > > Thanks for starting this subject line which I think is important. > > > >> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > >> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > >> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > >> > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > >> > >> I agree with you on this. > > > > I will request further clarification of the implications of this new > line of argument which is being advanced. First of all, it is obvious > that no one is suggesting and/or offering any > > > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > > policy processes > > > > to CS, and so I am unable to understand what is it that Jeanette and you > are referring to here. I asked Jeanette specifically, but she never came > back. I was busy, sorry. Binding policy processes was meant hypothetically. No, nobody offers us such a role. One can still have a discussion on whether or not such a role would be desirable. I think it would be not. I see civil society more in an agenda setting and scandalizing role because this fits well our loose network and movement based structure. Binding decisions that affect third parties require some form of constitution to be legitimate. Transnational civil society networks are far from being constitutionalized. In fact, we exlude more people than we include. This is why any formal decision-making authority would not only cause severe legitimacy problems but would probably destroy our structures. I never said we should not be part of policy processes, I just think that we should keep participating in an advisory and observer capacity. Obvious exceptions are organizations such as ICANN, which create membership organizations and thus some form of constitutionalized basis for a decision-making capacity. Come to think of it, ICANN embodies the opposite case: a formalized participation structure for civil society that lacks without any decision-making authority... jeanette > > > > Do you NOT want CS to be part of any policy structure whatsoever, > because the question of whom and how do we represent will come up > everywhere? I can theoretically understand that position since I know > people who hold such a view, but I haven’t associated this position with > most IGC members, especially the more active ones. They have actively > been involved in policy processes in the last few years, influencing it > in many ways. What has happened now, suddenly? Why did they all accept > the membership of WGIG, for instance? I know that many proposals for an > IGF kind of forum were made which had various kinds of decisions/ > recommendation powers for it (One such proposal was made you also, > Vittorio). Why did they make all inputs into WSIS processes, which was > an exercise of political power on behalf of CS? On whose behalf, and > with what legitimacy, was all that power/influence exercised? Do they > have absolute faith that they were doing it in, and seen by others in, > strictly their individual capacity? And what does individual capacity > really mean in structures like the WGIG and IGF MAG where the > composition is multistakeholder by quota, and in WSIS where there are > only that many CS speaking slots. > > > > I will like to know what has changed now? It is that at that time there > was this convenience of thinking that all CS thought alike, so power > could be exercised in various ways, because the objectives were common > and necessarily good for all... Is it that the IG CS structures cannot > come to terms that there are people with different interests and > worldviews, and we may need to discuss things internally a lot, and try > to inch forward through labored consensus...(Governments, with very > different perspectives do it all the time. That’s politics.) > > > > How is it that while till now CS always seem to have called for a > legitimate share in policy structures - which means a share in power > structures - though understanding that complex issues of what can and > cannot be legitimate arenas of CS involvement, and complexities of > legitimizing representation, is a complex set of issues, and progress > can only be made on this incrementally, through various innovations. We > went through the whole WSIS phase with this belief, and CS works outside > IS arena dealing with these complexities, with good overall > effectiveness. But they do not give up their ideals, objectives and > therefore the necessary politics because the means and structures of > their activity are less than perfect. > > > > Why are we now calling for an empty shell IGF and further, even an empty > shell IGC, ceasing all substantive outputs, and all politics. This new > prescription of CS distrusting itself on how will it exercise power (we > didn’t distrust ourselves all this while)and spending time on perfecting > empty processes (like kids cant be given real things to play with) in > the IGF MAG and IGC itself is strange.... > > > > I will like to see what other stakeholders will say to this... other > than be thoroughly amused. But they will be happy and feel justified. > That’s exactly what they said about CS all the while in resisting > multistakeholder processes with CS representation. > > > > I recognize the need to perfect processes, and the nature of legitimacy > as well as effectiveness of CS processes is an ongoing issue - of > discussion, of research and of practice - worldwide. But no one in the > CS ever gave this suggestion that lets cease our substantive objectives, > and our politics, till we perfect our processes (which, given the > intrinsic nature of the CS will be never) > > > > I must also make this observation - hoping everyone takes it as a point > of necessary argument and not directed against anyone - that one needs > to ponder on who is that can afford to cease politics... It is that who > is satisfied with the status quo. One who wants change - more pressingly > that one wants it - cant afford to suspend politics just for process > perfection. It is an easy thing to see. And I remember your comment, > Vittorio, in the .xxx debate that no position in politics is really > neutral. Neither then is the position of suspending politics. > > > > (In light the above, wonder what you mean by “>Perhaps our future > role > should just be that of substance-neutral )” > > > > We who are in these spaces just for seeking structural changes in > favours of the disadvantaged people are not going to agree to suspend > politics. That’s our main job here... > > > > About the present effectiveness of the IGC, we all have our concerns and > hopes…Jeremy listed all those things which were discussed/ adopted here > first and then taken up at by the IGF… we are doing fine on adopting > common positions. We set up a four part agenda for the IGF and we are > having workshops on all the four. We have an IGC sponsored and conducted > workshop for the first tie at the IGC, and we expect to be able to raise > the level of this workshop on ‘IGF mandate’ to become an annual feature. > There are many other things we can quote…. > > > > So for those – Jeanette, Wolfgang and Vittorio, in recent emails – who > are asking us to distrust our own involvement with power (a new > suggestion I must say in light our strong flirtations with it during > WSIS) and seek suspension of politics in order to perfect the processes > for some future use, I must also tell that we may be killing (I know I > am repeating it from an earlier email) an important global governance > innovation which provides a important role for civil society, which we > won after some struggle (also due to some external conditions). By > abdicating at this moment, do we think the processes will wait for us to > take up positions of influence in them… The cast for the IGF is being > set now, and we need to see what gains can be wrested NOW, and not wait > till the structures are set and we handed our portion. If we need to > carve out positions of influence for CS we need to work now… > > > > And on whose behalf would we take the decision to suspend politics and > not represent any substantive views…there is some kind of de facto > representation that IGC has for the wider global CS which would trust > that we keep some general CS perspectives and interests in mind – > carving positions of substantive influence for the CS constituency is > definitely one of them. As I/ we trust similarly CS actors involved in > other arenas which affect us, but for which we may not have > time/specialization, like WIPO, environment, peace and disarmament, etc. > > > > I know we have some deep differences in the IGC, but these can only be > overcome by open discussion…. That’s why I took the cue form your email > about what ‘threatens the internet community’ and sought an open and > frank discussion on it…. Equally people should seek explanations of what > may happen if we do too close an involvement with some governments and > how it impacts short and long term CS interests…. Abdication, I repeat, > will itself be a political move. And I don’t agree to it. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > >> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:39 PM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> Cc: Parminder > >> Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF > >> > >> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > >> > Hi, > >> > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal > >> > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of > >> > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments it > >> > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of > >> > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a > >> > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space in > >> > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this > >> > protection. > >> > > >> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > >> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > >> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > >> > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > >> > >> I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous > >> point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can > >> evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and especially > >> picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not have > >> any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit more > >> of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain (limited) > >> steering role for the IGF process. > >> > >> In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, er, > >> "dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership > >> (constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both > >> from the membership and from the representative side. The membership > >> feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and > >> every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example > >> because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The > >> representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls > >> for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members > >> complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality > >> is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the > >> fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very > >> egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g. > >> see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this > >> channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it > >> whenever there is momentum to do so. > >> > >> However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder to > >> think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our future > >> role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue > >> for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow > >> their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and to > >> how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier > >> and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective > >> statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every > >> two months. > >> -- > >> 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 7 13:01:05 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:01:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070907093709.C0691E1CE0@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070907093709.C0691E1CE0@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46E183D1.5080805@wzb.eu> Guru at ITfC schrieb: > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either or' > situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at the cost of > discussing access. > > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not any > less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me it is obvious > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to meaningful > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe that > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the rest, > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' and 'good > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse? > > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the current > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio. > > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to point > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth :-) Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I have always argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet Governance in case that is what you were asking about. jeanette > > Guru > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > www.ITforChange.net | > A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he likes.~Thomas > Huxley~ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what >> most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they >> are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in >> Internet Governance. > > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what > she hears, not what she believes. > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at the > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And when > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and > that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing internet > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom access > facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up about > ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate into, oh, 230 additional > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. It may > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments in > countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds are > diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism of ICANN > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate and > inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet > symposia. > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we are > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't even > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are serious > policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address > distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who will be the > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual new > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. But I > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS > debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to repeat > ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of > imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues > there. > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own domestic > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules for > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been written > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules is their > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they > equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a > real discussion of these issues. > > --Milton Mueller > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > 8:36 AM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From guru at itforchange.net Fri Sep 7 13:39:47 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 23:09:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <20070907174029.BF59867897@smtp1.electricembers.net> There is a small but critical difference between what Milton has argued and what Raul has responded to. Raul is suggesting that 'most people in his country/region are not interested in CIR, which means that CIR is not identified as important by developing countries'. I am sure if a poll were to be run in India, more than 99 % of our 1 billion + population would not have even heard of CIRs, are we suggesting that we infer from this that CIR issue is not important for India. But Milton suggest, the issue is one of 'relevance'. Even if most Indians have not heard of CIRs, will the nature of governance of CIRs impact their ability to use these CIRs. Without doubt they will and there are clear examples in the IPV4 vs IPV6 issue (in terms of current inequitable allocation of ip addresses and inability to satisfy the needs of new users from developing countries), or issue of domain names in languages other than english (India is home to 25 + languages, each spoken by more than 10 million people). It is quite clear .... Given that CIRs are / will become limited/scarce, how can their equitable distribution be ensured when their own governance, by being dominated by a few groups/interests, is not. Or even more simply that the internet represents a significant infrastructure/asset in the world today, which impacts the lives of billions of people all over the world ... And hence the rules for running / designing it need to be framed keeping diverse interests in mind ... And it is too much to expect that a small set of groups/countries will do this in a fair manner. A move towards greater involvement of other stakeholders is therefore necessary (though not sufficient) for ensuring greater equity in the use of CIRs. (We have argued on this list several times that the 'internet community comprises of all of us who are impacted by the internet ... Not only those who are on-line today'). The concept of 'informed choice' suggests that unless we take the debate to people in a meaningful and coherent manner and explain its relevance and criticality, else it could be dangerous to make inferences from polls (though I am not aware of the details of the poll Raul mentions) .... See Dan Krim in an earlier mail state "It's a difficult thing to explain how these policy developments at ICANN affect general public interests, but when they are actually explained in a way that general public people can understand, it does increasingly make a difference". Unless the required investment of time and effort is made, it may be dangerous to presume lack of interest in an issue that will have significant impact on our lives. Guru Ps - the issue of IPV4 reminded me of the fossil fuel - greenhouse effect discusions in the environmental debates ... The increased use of fossil fuels in the rapidly growing economies of India and China gets stick for increased pollution/global warming .... And these countries are expected to put in their 'share' of sacrifice, which the developed countries did not... Apart from the fact that the prices for these fuels that are being paid today by the developing countries is several times what the developed countries paid, during their periods of rapid growth. Pps - the idea of my mail is not to convert the entire IG issue into one of developed vs developing countries, or that developing countries will have only one perspective .... There are power hierarchies every where, including within developing countries ... But just to highlight the danger of overlooking any differential developing country concerns, or being 'apolitical' and assuming that they would be subsumed within the concerns or welfare of the dominant groups. -----Original Message----- From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net] Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:04 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' Milton: It is a very interesting mail. As somebody coming from a developing country, I can tell you that the attention to the issue of Critical Internet Resources is very low in my region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. In fact, it is very interesting the result of the survey conducted by ECLAC (Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/269 98/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl If you click in results you will see that Internet Governance in general (expression associated mainly to the CIR) is very low ranked. There are different rankings but in all of the this issue is ranked about position 37 in the list or priorities for the region regardind Information Society. So, It is clear that most of people in developing countries don't care about that. It is interesting to see that the participation in the survey was very diverse and balanced with a lot of people from governmnets, civil society, private sector and academic sector. This survey will be the base for the desinging of the Regional Information Society next 3 years plan. A new version of the survey will be issued next week. Probably some government will bring the issue to the table again before the Regional conference in El Salvador in November and probably it will become part of the plan, but it will not happen because it was defined as a priority, that's clear. This is for commenting what you said about your experience in the meeting in Oxford. Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and development oriented issues are incompatibles and we can discuss abut only one of them. Clearly they are not. We can and we have to discuss both. But it is important to say that we have to discuss CIR because we think that it is important and we have to accept that saying that developing countries are worried about that is not a valid argument. You raised other point that is if CIR related issues are or are not important for developing countries. And I agree with your approach and with some of the examples that you use. I think that they are important and have important impact in developing countries. But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from developed countries, decided that this is important for developing countries despite de fact that those countrie don't identify these issues as important, we will be in the same situation that you criticized regarding Oxford meeting, and in fact my perception is that the participation of people from my region in IGF meeting in Rio will not be very large and most of us from LAC in Rio will be the "usual suspects" (including myself of course) . Hopefully I am wrong. So, we have to find out the balance. We can discuss anything but it is clear that most important issues for developing countries are those related with development. Should we stop to discuss CIR, no, but we can not use developing countries concerns as the justification for that. Is this important for Developing Countries? we think yes, but so, we have to work more for really engage them in the discussion and not let mainly people from the most developed part of the world, to decide based on what is their perception about developing countries needs. Raúl At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > > Internet Governance. > >It is important to point out that Jeanette is >just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes. > >And I have heard this argument many times >before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford >Internet Institute conference last year, where a >room full of British, Americans and Europeans >insisted that developing countries don't care >about the CIR issues, they care about >development and access. And when I pointed out >that no one in the room was from a developing >country, and that the parties who had raised the >issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, >South Africa, China and a other developing >countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > >The theory here seems to be that time and energy >spent discussing internet resource policy is >purchased at the expense of developing telecom >access facilities. So, for example, if Milton >Mueller would just shut up about ICANN for 30 >days, this would immediately translate into, oh, >230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > >I don't know whether the economics of this have >been worked out yet. It may be that my >interventions in ICANN require such enormous >investments in countermeasures from the USG, the >World Bank and Japan that funds are diverted >from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's >criticism of ICANN unsettles international >capital markets, raising the interest rate and >inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is >a topic for future GigaNet symposia. > >Anyway, in a period where we are about to run >out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a debate >on markets for IP addresses and the old regime >won't even consider it because it would upset >their control. And there are serious policy >debates even within IETF about the bloc size of >IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is >not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But >it is certainly relevant to developing >countries, who will be the primary source of >demand for address space in the years to come. > >Likewise, most growth in domain name markets >will come from multilingual new TLDs, which are >most relevant to developing countries. > >Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > >The challenge is indeed to move beyond old >divisions and dichotomies. But I am afraid that >the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to >discourage discussion of these issues, are the >ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. >They think there is nothing to say about this >but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. >Aside from showing a terrible lack of >imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues there. > >As physical access in developing countries >grows, and as their own domestic ISP market >increases in size, they will inherit a world >where the rules for getting IP addresses and >entering the domain name market have been >written in the USA. More important than the >geographic source of the rules is their >substance: are they efficient, do they encourage >competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio >we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. > >--Milton Mueller > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 >- Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Sep 7 05:26:50 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:26:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070907055444.C0B5D67859@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070907055444.C0B5D67859@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <01A054F9-6CEC-4753-BF45-DEF9D8489847@psg.com> hi, my guess for the reason cIr is different from the 4 themes from Athens is that the 4 themes from Athens already had their introductory sessions to bring out information and opinion. and it is as a result of those sessions that the list of more specific issues was created. i think the sessions may be exactly the place where what everyone is afraid of on all sides of the issue, if anyone is really afraid, will be able to be brought out. or at least the session plus the workshops certainly offers the opportunity to really get the topics people on all sides want to get out. one of the things that really confuses me in the discussion is why people so often choose to ascribe the worst possible motives to those they disagree with. there are vast differences of opinion with all sorts of justified concerns on all sides of the messy issues. a. On 7 sep 2007, at 07.54, Parminder wrote: > > > As a further proof, if it was indeed required, of the threat some > actors feel on the matter of discussing CIR governance, in the new > draft program, while in other thematic areas the text directly goes > to issues involved – in the area of CIRs there is a specific > mention that “The purpose of the discussion is to bring out > information and opinion”. It is almost funny…. What is it supposed > to mean… and what then is the purpose of discussions in other > sessions…. what is it that the draft program is trying to > foreclose… that someone may not pull out a gun or something !… Why > don’t these people directly spell out what are they afraid of. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > www.ITforChange.net > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 7 14:47:01 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 14:47:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CB3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >somebody from the IANA (David Conrad?) >somebody from the RIR communities (Alain Aina?) >somebody from the IETF side (Lynn St. Amour? Brian Carpenter?) >somebody from an IPv6 NGO (Jordi Palet?) >somebody from a rootserver (Paul Vixie/Dan Karrenberg?) >somebody from the CS/.org domain field (Alexa Raad?)_ > >If you notice ICANN has very little to do with most of these CIR policy areas, >Yet again....ICANN is sucking all the "heat and light" from the discussion. > >Can we please refocus this thread on speakers?? >I am the only one who has pitched a short list (withthe exception of >MM who pitched USG reps). McTim: This came in under a different heading -- The Internet Governance Project has been focusing on critical internet resources from a critical perspective for some time. Experts associated with it include myself, Brenden Kuerbis (who will lead a panel on DNSSEC in Rio), Jeanette Hofmann, Lee McKnight and Hans Klein. I note that almost all the other speaker suggestions are associated with vested interests in critical internet resources (IANA, ISOC, RIRs). This is not criticism of those people, nor is it intended to suggest that such people, who are often very knowledgeable and have good ideas, should not be represented. But it would be a travesty of an independent and open dialogue if the only people given a voice on such a panel were the people who have their own institutions and organizations and their policies to defend. We need some independent perspectives. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 15:03:14 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:03:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46E183D1.5080805@wzb.eu> References: <20070907093709.C0691E1CE0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46E183D1.5080805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >While it is true that discussions on access and >discussion on critical internet resourses don't >exclude each other, it is also true that public >attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on >Internet Governance was so dominant that other >controversial issues such as the financing of ICTs >never got the attention it deserved. This brings up another point: what is really within the purview of global governance and what is primarily a national issue? I personally believe that the most salient issues with respect to the financing, construction and economic sustainability of the physical layer (and let's remember that the Internet is layer 3 -- networking software -- not layer 1, physical) are played out at the national level, or in venues dealing with trade in products and services (WTO, market access, foreign investment, etc.). Here, domestic telecom policy is a critical factor. No amount of top-down financing by UN agencies can serve as a substitute for organic domestic economic growth that produces viable relations among suppliers and consumers of Internet services. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Sep 7 15:15:43 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:15:43 -0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> If we were to follow surveys like this, we would exclude many other issues from the discussion -- using the same logic, who really cares about IPR in our or any other region except the IPR business? Or net neutrality, which most people do not know about but become shocked once they know the grizzly details of the telcos' pratices? Also, it is wrong to map the interest on CIRs in Brazil with the Brazilian government -- it goes quite beyond this, and it was a civil society + academic mobilization in 1994-1995 (and in 2002 as well) which allowed Brazil to establish a pluralist, non-profit governance system, directly related to CIRs. I continue to find curious that, despite the fact that all the other issues are similary complex and relevant, only CIRs spark such strong dedication against debating it on the part of the business community, the US government and the people linked to the current global logical infrastructure governance system -- which, at the IGF, act practically as one voice. This was so in the preparation of the agenda for Athens (when they succeeded in dropping the issue entirely from the main agenda) and resistance continues against it, despite the fact that it is irreversibly part of the main IGF debate and agenda from now on. I insist that this group is getting behind ICANN itself, which is in a process of change (not as much or as quickly as many of us would like) and now seems clearly above this kind of resistance. frt rgds --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: > > Milton: > > It is a very interesting mail. > > As somebody coming from a developing country, I can tell you that the > attention to the issue of Critical Internet Resources is very low in my > region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. > > In fact, it is very interesting the result of the survey conducted by > ECLAC (Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). > http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/26998/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl > > > If you click in results you will see that Internet Governance in general > (expression associated mainly to the CIR) is very low ranked. There are > different rankings but in all of the this issue is ranked about position > 37 in the list or priorities for the region regardind Information Society. > > So, It is clear that most of people in developing countries don't care > about that. It is interesting to see that the participation in the > survey was very diverse and balanced with a lot of people from > governmnets, civil society, private sector and academic sector. > > This survey will be the base for the desinging of the Regional > Information Society next 3 years plan. A new version of the survey will > be issued next week. > > Probably some government will bring the issue to the table again before > the Regional conference in El Salvador in November and probably it will > become part of the plan, but it will not happen because it was defined > as a priority, that's clear. > > This is for commenting what you said about your experience in the > meeting in Oxford. > > > Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and development oriented > issues are incompatibles and we can discuss abut only one of them. > Clearly they are not. > We can and we have to discuss both. But it is important to say that we > have to discuss CIR because we think that it is important and we have to > accept that saying that developing countries are worried about that is > not a valid argument. > > You raised other point that is if CIR related issues are or are not > important for developing countries. And I agree with your approach and > with some of the examples that you use. I think that they are important > and have important impact in developing countries. > > But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from developed countries, > decided that this is important for developing countries despite de fact > that those countrie don't identify these issues as important, we will be > in the same situation that you criticized regarding Oxford meeting, and > in fact my perception is that the participation of people from my region > in IGF meeting in Rio will not be very large and most of us from LAC in > Rio will be the "usual suspects" (including myself of course) . > Hopefully I am wrong. > > > So, we have to find out the balance. We can discuss anything but it is > clear that most important issues for developing countries are those > related with development. Should we stop to discuss CIR, no, but we can > not use developing countries concerns as the justification for that. > Is this important for Developing Countries? we think yes, but so, we > have to work more for really engage them in the discussion and not let > mainly people from the most developed part of the world, to decide based > on what is their perception about developing countries needs. > > > Raúl > > > > At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all >> > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what >> > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they >> > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in >> > Internet Governance. >> >> It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately >> reporting what she hears, not what she believes. >> >> And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it >> at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room >> full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing >> countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about development >> and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a >> developing country, and that the parties who had raised the issue >> repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South Africa, China and a >> other developing countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather >> abrupt end. >> >> The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing >> internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing >> telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would >> just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate >> into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about >> US$ 230,000. >> >> I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. >> It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous >> investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan >> that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's >> criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital markets, raising >> the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is >> a topic for future GigaNet symposia. >> >> Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, >> we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old >> regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc >> size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant >> to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to >> developing countries, who will be the primary source of demand for >> address space in the years to come. >> >> Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from >> multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. >> >> Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. >> >> The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. >> But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to >> discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in >> the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this >> but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a >> terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really >> meaty policy issues there. >> >> As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own >> domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where >> the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market >> have been written in the USA. More important than the geographic >> source of the rules is their substance: are they efficient, do they >> encourage competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move >> beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. >> >> --Milton Mueller >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: >> 9/6/2007 8:36 AM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- 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 veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 15:23:34 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:23:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.ed u> References: <20070907093709.C0691E1CE0@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46E183D1.5080805@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46e1a590.0f1d640a.07b8.78a9@mx.google.com> Milton, you know how much I respect you, but here I have to bring the perspective of someone who knows the "other side of the story". And that is, that for the developing countries it is an issue about access - access to information, but also affordability, freedom of this access, etc. However, there's one big issue, which is that - still - the developing countries pay more to the developed ones for their access to the Internet, and that is the big issue. I certainly believe that IP addresses may have some importance, but it's nothing compared to the prices poor and underdeveloped countries (and users) pay to the rich countries in order just to get to the leased line (or the fiber-optic, wherever it exists). So, while you say that the international issues are different from the ones I described above, it may be true only from your perspective - of an US professor. For your colleagues in Africa, Asia, South America, Southeastern Europe... the important questions are not the ones you care about. To believe that the "organic domestic economic growth that produces viable relations among suppliers and consumers of Internet services." is just to believe in market economy only, without taking into account that sometimes the countries may not have stable economic growth for a number of reasons, and in many cases the Internet users (consumers as you name them) don't really have a choice, but to use the state-owned monopolist. Hope that this note will make you re-arrange your priorities, esp. that you have a project that is talking about Internet governance. best, Veni At 15:03 9/7/2007 -0400, you wrote: >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > >While it is true that discussions on access and > >discussion on critical internet resourses don't > >exclude each other, it is also true that public > >attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on > >Internet Governance was so dominant that other > >controversial issues such as the financing of ICTs > >never got the attention it deserved. > >This brings up another point: what is really within the purview of >global governance and what is primarily a national issue? I personally >believe that the most salient issues with respect to the financing, >construction and economic sustainability of the physical layer (and >let's remember that the Internet is layer 3 -- networking software -- >not layer 1, physical) are played out at the national level, or in >venues dealing with trade in products and services (WTO, market access, >foreign investment, etc.). Here, domestic telecom policy is a critical >factor. No amount of top-down financing by UN agencies can serve as a >substitute for organic domestic economic growth that produces viable >relations among suppliers and consumers of Internet services. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Veni Markovski http://www.veni.com check also my blog: http://blog.veni.com The opinions expressed above are those of the author, not of any organizations, associated with or related to the author in any given way. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Sep 7 15:31:09 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:31:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 7:41 AM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote: >At 21:55 9/6/2007 -0700, you wrote: >>This is exactly my point. This is a beautiful example of an intrinsically >>ineffective ad, unless perhaps it would have been placed in a *jobs >>section* or something. What a waste. > >Ah, >so now this is a waste. If there are no ads, then the criticism is >"why there are no ads". If there are ads, it changes to "what a >waste". The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective. My call is for effective ads, not just any old ads. To claim that ads don't work while failing to understand that there were fatal flaws in the design and placement of the ads is to ignore those internal flaws and to blame the ad's intended audience for not responding to the ads when in fact it is how the ads were devised in the first place that is primarily at fault for any non-response. Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed. In experimental terms, this was a flawed experiment with insufficient controls and erroneous analysis of results. If it were an experiment, it would be a travesty of violation of the scientific method. But it still would make sense to do the experiment properly! I'm *still* calling for *well-executed* ads in terms of outreach for general public comments for the public fora (which this ad doesn't address in the slightest -- as I said before, apples and oranges). If you'd stop defending the indefensible out of blind institutional loyalty and try to correct and improve the process instead, you'd be a lot better off. And in the meantime, hire some professionals with appropriately matched expertise to do professional work. This ad was simply not professionally executed, regardless of whatever credentials the people working on it had or have. And it doesn't apply to the public comment process in any manner at all. I'm afraid I cannot spend any more time today on this or over the weekend, due to other obligations. Perhaps I'll pick up on it on Monday, perhaps not. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Fri Sep 7 15:35:08 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:35:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: <46e138a2.101d640a.13c2.ffffd8c0@mx.google.com> References: <46df9314.23bb720a.1411.71adSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> <007101c7f06f$bcea0d40$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <012001c7f0e0$7d81af20$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <46e0b267.0735640a.5e26.49e0@mx.google.com> <46e0ba9c.0f1d640a.07b8.5e32@mx.google.com> <46e138a2.101d640a.13c2.ffffd8c0@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 7:36 AM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote: >And I wonder - why don't you join ICANN through the NomCom, and see >if you are one of the "right people"? Otherwise, it's always easier >to criticize. I was actually beginning to seriously consider it, but NCUC already has a fine NomCom rep in Karen Banks, and she is prepared to continue, so she should. BTW, I need a *paying* job. Any ideas there? ICANN NomCom unfortunately doesn't fit that criterion. :-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 15:39:04 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:39:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46e1a8d4.0f1d640a.07b8.7bd8@mx.google.com> Carlos, At 16:15 9/7/2007 -0300, you wrote: >part of the business community, the US government and the people >linked to the current global logical infrastructure governance >system -- which, at the IGF, act practically as one voice. Perhaps you'd like to find a way to beg the pardon of a number of governments with this statement? Certainly the USG voice is heard, but so are the voices of other countries, countries ranging from Australia to Japan, and from Canada to the EU-members, who do not share your views about the 1-sided world. On the other hand, if I use your argument, I may (just may) ask some people why are they opposing the fact that developing countries are more interested in having affordable access to the Internet, rather than low-cost domains or endless IP addresses? To say that someone is afraid of a discussion forum is not naive, it's aiming at the wrong direction. There's no fear from the IGF - as far as I can see - anywhere, except probably among the people who make their living out of organizing big UN conferences;) My personal views (as always in this list) are that we waste time and money in debating issues which are relevant only for a small group of people and countries, while the vast majority have completely different agenda. When someone has an "anti-" agenda, that's a weak agenda. The only strong agenda is the "pro-" one. Or in other words - it's easier to destruct, than to construct. You could trust me on that, as coming from a country which was mainly anti-West oriented and then going into the other side, of being anti-East. Neither of those worked well. It worked really well, on the other hand, when we started to have a pro-EU discussion. The results are visible, even for people who don't know well Bulgaria. So, my proposal is to focus on the real issues, and stop wasting time about conspiracy theories how there are people who are afraid of the IGF. veni 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 veni at veni.com Fri Sep 7 15:48:00 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:48:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - ideas? In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> At 12:31 9/7/2007 -0700, you wrote: >The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective. My call >is for effective ads, not just any old ads. Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;) >Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for >ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed. You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren mentioned will continue to be a fact. >If you'd stop defending the indefensible out of blind institutional loyalty Perhaps you don't realize that I don't do this mailing here as part of my job; I am doing it in my 5-minute break time, and certainly neither my statement here, nor in any other mailing lists, unless signed properly, in some cases with a digital signature, issued under the Bulgarian E-Document and E-Signature law, could be taken as official positions of any of the organizations I am affiliated or related to. Perhaps I need to put that more often in my signature file, so that you don't get confused. As you will notice I don't even count the organizations, just because I may omit one or two. 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 raul at lacnic.net Fri Sep 7 17:01:51 2007 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:01:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> Dear Carlos: The intention of my email was to explore other aspects of Milton's email that I found very interesting, but anyway let me make these clarifications: - Sorry for the mistake. If you say that is all the Brazilian community that is concerned about CIR now (not in 1994) is enough for me. I thought that I was recognizing that it was an important issue for Brazilian government, what I think is true. My apologies for the confusion. - The survey that I mentioned is very serious and valuable and the participants were mainly decision making people, not citizens in general. So, I think that we can take conclusions from it. - I don't know how many times I have said, including the email that you responded, that I am very fine with discussing CIR. The problem is that some people tend to put this issue as the most important issue and I simply disagree. Just that. - Since you were responding to my email, I don't know if you consider that LACNIC is part of the group that you mention, but any assertion from which could be interpreted that LACNIC is "behind ICANN" or behind any other organization or allied to the US Government or to any other government is simply something with no serious basis, and I don't understand what is the relation between this assertion and the content of my email. Warm Regads, Raúl At 04:15 p.m. 07/09/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >If we were to follow surveys like this, we would >exclude many other issues from the discussion -- >using the same logic, who really cares about IPR >in our or any other region except the IPR >business? Or net neutrality, which most people >do not know about but become shocked once they >know the grizzly details of the telcos' >pratices? Also, it is wrong to map the interest >on CIRs in Brazil with the Brazilian government >-- it goes quite beyond this, and it was a civil >society + academic mobilization in 1994-1995 >(and in 2002 as well) which allowed Brazil to >establish a pluralist, non-profit governance system, directly related to CIRs. > >I continue to find curious that, despite the >fact that all the other issues are similary >complex and relevant, only CIRs spark such >strong dedication against debating it on the >part of the business community, the US >government and the people linked to the current >global logical infrastructure governance system >-- which, at the IGF, act practically as one >voice. This was so in the preparation of the >agenda for Athens (when they succeeded in >dropping the issue entirely from the main >agenda) and resistance continues against it, >despite the fact that it is irreversibly part of >the main IGF debate and agenda from now on. > >I insist that this group is getting behind ICANN >itself, which is in a process of change (not as >much or as quickly as many of us would like) and >now seems clearly above this kind of resistance. > >frt rgds > >--c.a. > >Raul Echeberria wrote: >>Milton: >>It is a very interesting mail. >>As somebody coming from a developing country, I >>can tell you that the attention to the issue of >>Critical Internet Resources is very low in my >>region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. >>In fact, it is very interesting the result of >>the survey conducted by ECLAC (Economic >>Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). >>http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/26998/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl >> >>If you click in results you will see that >>Internet Governance in general (expression >>associated mainly to the CIR) is very low >>ranked. There are different rankings but in all >>of the this issue is ranked about position 37 >>in the list or priorities for the region regardind Information Society. >>So, It is clear that most of people in >>developing countries don't care about that. It >>is interesting to see that the participation in >>the survey was very diverse and balanced with a >>lot of people from governmnets, civil society, >>private sector and academic sector. >>This survey will be the base for the desinging >>of the Regional Information Society next 3 >>years plan. A new version of the survey will be issued next week. >>Probably some government will bring the issue >>to the table again before the Regional >>conference in El Salvador in November and >>probably it will become part of the plan, but >>it will not happen because it was defined as a priority, that's clear. >>This is for commenting what you said about your >>experience in the meeting in Oxford. >> >>Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and >>development oriented issues are incompatibles >>and we can discuss abut only one of them. Clearly they are not. >>We can and we have to discuss both. But it is >>important to say that we have to discuss CIR >>because we think that it is important and we >>have to accept that saying that developing >>countries are worried about that is not a valid argument. >>You raised other point that is if CIR related >>issues are or are not important for developing >>countries. And I agree with your approach and >>with some of the examples that you use. I think >>that they are important and have important impact in developing countries. >>But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from >>developed countries, decided that this is >>important for developing countries despite de >>fact that those countrie don't identify these >>issues as important, we will be in the same >>situation that you criticized regarding Oxford >>meeting, and in fact my perception is that the >>participation of people from my region in IGF >>meeting in Rio will not be very large and most >>of us from LAC in Rio will be the "usual >>suspects" (including myself of course) . Hopefully I am wrong. >> >>So, we have to find out the balance. We can >>discuss anything but it is clear that most >>important issues for developing countries are >>those related with development. Should we stop >>to discuss CIR, no, but we can not use >>developing countries concerns as the justification for that. >>Is this important for Developing Countries? we >>think yes, but so, we have to work more for >>really engage them in the discussion and not >>let mainly people from the most developed part >>of the world, to decide based on what is their >>perception about developing countries needs. >> >>Raúl >> >>At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all >>> > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what >>> > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they >>> > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in >>> > Internet Governance. >>> >>>It is important to point out that Jeanette is >>>just accurately reporting what she hears, not what she believes. >>> >>>And I have heard this argument many times >>>before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford >>>Internet Institute conference last year, where >>>a room full of British, Americans and >>>Europeans insisted that developing countries >>>don't care about the CIR issues, they care >>>about development and access. And when I >>>pointed out that no one in the room was from a >>>developing country, and that the parties who >>>had raised the issue repeatedly in global >>>forums were Brazil, South Africa, China and a >>>other developing countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. >>> >>>The theory here seems to be that time and >>>energy spent discussing internet resource >>>policy is purchased at the expense of >>>developing telecom access facilities. So, for >>>example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up >>>about ICANN for 30 days, this would >>>immediately translate into, oh, 230 additional >>>access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. >>> >>>I don't know whether the economics of this >>>have been worked out yet. It may be that my >>>interventions in ICANN require such enormous >>>investments in countermeasures from the USG, >>>the World Bank and Japan that funds are >>>diverted from global foreign aid. It may be >>>that IGP's criticism of ICANN unsettles >>>international capital markets, raising the >>>interest rate and inverting the yield curve on >>>bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. >>> >>>Anyway, in a period where we are about to run >>>out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a >>>debate on markets for IP addresses and the old >>>regime won't even consider it because it would >>>upset their control. And there are serious >>>policy debates even within IETF about the bloc >>>size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea >>>that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is >>>just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to >>>developing countries, who will be the primary >>>source of demand for address space in the years to come. >>> >>>Likewise, most growth in domain name markets >>>will come from multilingual new TLDs, which >>>are most relevant to developing countries. >>> >>>Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. >>> >>>The challenge is indeed to move beyond old >>>divisions and dichotomies. But I am afraid >>>that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt >>>to discourage discussion of these issues, are >>>the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS >>>debates. They think there is nothing to say >>>about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and >>>Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack >>>of imagination, this is irresponsible. There >>>are really meaty policy issues there. >>> >>>As physical access in developing countries >>>grows, and as their own domestic ISP market >>>increases in size, they will inherit a world >>>where the rules for getting IP addresses and >>>entering the domain name market have been >>>written in the USA. More important than the >>>geographic source of the rules is their >>>substance: are they efficient, do they >>>encourage competition, are they equitable? >>>Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we >>>actually have a real discussion of these issues. >>> >>>--Milton Mueller >>> >>> >>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: >>>269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >-- > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Sep 7 17:43:24 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:43:24 -0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <46E1C5FC.7040003@rits.org.br> Caro Raul, generalizations are dangerous, of course, and on the other hand language limits somewhat what we want to express. It would be tiresome to readers to list all of the organizations/companies which systematically position themselves in favor of a common vision in the MAG. I also agree we several times express our personal views which might not coincide with those of the organization(s) we represent -- which I think is less common with the business commmunity reps. I agree the assertion you mention is not directly related to your email. fraternal regards --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: > > Dear Carlos: > > > The intention of my email was to explore other aspects of Milton's email > that I found very interesting, but anyway let me make these clarifications: > > > - Sorry for the mistake. If you say that is all the Brazilian community > that is concerned about CIR now (not in 1994) is enough for me. I > thought that I was recognizing that it was an important issue for > Brazilian government, what I think is true. My apologies for the confusion. > > - The survey that I mentioned is very serious and valuable and the > participants were mainly decision making people, not citizens in > general. So, I think that we can take conclusions from it. > > - I don't know how many times I have said, including the email that you > responded, that I am very fine with discussing CIR. The problem is that > some people tend to put this issue as the most important issue and I > simply disagree. Just that. > > - Since you were responding to my email, I don't know if you consider > that LACNIC is part of the group that you mention, but any assertion > from which could be interpreted that LACNIC is "behind ICANN" or behind > any other organization or allied to the US Government or to any other > government is simply something with no serious basis, and I don't > understand what is the relation between this assertion and the content > of my email. > > > Warm Regads, > > Raúl > > > > > At 04:15 p.m. 07/09/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> If we were to follow surveys like this, we would exclude many other >> issues from the discussion -- using the same logic, who really cares >> about IPR in our or any other region except the IPR business? Or net >> neutrality, which most people do not know about but become shocked >> once they know the grizzly details of the telcos' pratices? Also, it >> is wrong to map the interest on CIRs in Brazil with the Brazilian >> government -- it goes quite beyond this, and it was a civil society + >> academic mobilization in 1994-1995 (and in 2002 as well) which allowed >> Brazil to establish a pluralist, non-profit governance system, >> directly related to CIRs. >> >> I continue to find curious that, despite the fact that all the other >> issues are similary complex and relevant, only CIRs spark such strong >> dedication against debating it on the part of the business community, >> the US government and the people linked to the current global logical >> infrastructure governance system -- which, at the IGF, act practically >> as one voice. This was so in the preparation of the agenda for Athens >> (when they succeeded in dropping the issue entirely from the main >> agenda) and resistance continues against it, despite the fact that it >> is irreversibly part of the main IGF debate and agenda from now on. >> >> I insist that this group is getting behind ICANN itself, which is in a >> process of change (not as much or as quickly as many of us would like) >> and now seems clearly above this kind of resistance. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> Raul Echeberria wrote: >>> Milton: >>> It is a very interesting mail. >>> As somebody coming from a developing country, I can tell you that the >>> attention to the issue of Critical Internet Resources is very low in >>> my region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. >>> In fact, it is very interesting the result of the survey conducted by >>> ECLAC (Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). >>> http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas/8/26998/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bottom.xsl >>> >>> If you click in results you will see that Internet Governance in >>> general (expression associated mainly to the CIR) is very low ranked. >>> There are different rankings but in all of the this issue is ranked >>> about position 37 in the list or priorities for the region regardind >>> Information Society. >>> So, It is clear that most of people in developing countries don't >>> care about that. It is interesting to see that the participation in >>> the survey was very diverse and balanced with a lot of people from >>> governmnets, civil society, private sector and academic sector. >>> This survey will be the base for the desinging of the Regional >>> Information Society next 3 years plan. A new version of the survey >>> will be issued next week. >>> Probably some government will bring the issue to the table again >>> before the Regional conference in El Salvador in November and >>> probably it will become part of the plan, but it will not happen >>> because it was defined as a priority, that's clear. >>> This is for commenting what you said about your experience in the >>> meeting in Oxford. >>> >>> Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and development oriented >>> issues are incompatibles and we can discuss abut only one of them. >>> Clearly they are not. >>> We can and we have to discuss both. But it is important to say that >>> we have to discuss CIR because we think that it is important and we >>> have to accept that saying that developing countries are worried >>> about that is not a valid argument. >>> You raised other point that is if CIR related issues are or are not >>> important for developing countries. And I agree with your approach >>> and with some of the examples that you use. I think that they are >>> important and have important impact in developing countries. >>> But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from developed countries, >>> decided that this is important for developing countries despite de >>> fact that those countrie don't identify these issues as important, we >>> will be in the same situation that you criticized regarding Oxford >>> meeting, and in fact my perception is that the participation of >>> people from my region in IGF meeting in Rio will not be very large >>> and most of us from LAC in Rio will be the "usual suspects" >>> (including myself of course) . Hopefully I am wrong. >>> >>> So, we have to find out the balance. We can discuss anything but it >>> is clear that most important issues for developing countries are >>> those related with development. Should we stop to discuss CIR, no, >>> but we can not use developing countries concerns as the justification >>> for that. >>> Is this important for Developing Countries? we think yes, but so, we >>> have to work more for really engage them in the discussion and not >>> let mainly people from the most developed part of the world, to >>> decide based on what is their perception about developing countries >>> needs. >>> >>> Raúl >>> >>> At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all >>>> > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are >>>> what >>>> > most people in developing countries really care about. As long as >>>> they >>>> > are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in >>>> > Internet Governance. >>>> >>>> It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately >>>> reporting what she hears, not what she believes. >>>> >>>> And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it >>>> at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room >>>> full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing >>>> countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about >>>> development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the >>>> room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had >>>> raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South >>>> Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of >>>> dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. >>>> >>>> The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing >>>> internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing >>>> telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would >>>> just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately >>>> translate into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net >>>> value of about US$ 230,000. >>>> >>>> I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. >>>> It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous >>>> investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and >>>> Japan that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be >>>> that IGP's criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital >>>> markets, raising the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on >>>> bonds. Now there is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. >>>> >>>> Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, >>>> we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old >>>> regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. >>>> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc >>>> size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not >>>> relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly >>>> relevant to developing countries, who will be the primary source of >>>> demand for address space in the years to come. >>>> >>>> Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from >>>> multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. >>>> >>>> Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. >>>> >>>> The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and >>>> dichotomies. But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who >>>> attempt to discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who >>>> are stuck in the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to >>>> say about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside >>>> from showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. >>>> There are really meaty policy issues there. >>>> >>>> As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own >>>> domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world >>>> where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain >>>> name market have been written in the USA. More important than the >>>> geographic source of the rules is their substance: are they >>>> efficient, do they encourage competition, are they equitable? >>>> Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real >>>> discussion of these issues. >>>> >>>> --Milton Mueller >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: >>>> 9/6/2007 8:36 AM >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >> -- >> >> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Sep 7 17:56:21 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:56:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CB7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> nail. hammer. head. -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] I continue to find curious that, despite the fact that all the other issues are similary complex and relevant, only CIRs spark such strong dedication against debating it on the part of the business community, the US government and the people linked to the current global logical infrastructure governance system -- which, at the IGF, act practically as one voice. This was so in the preparation of the agenda for Athens (when they succeeded in dropping the issue entirely from the main agenda) and resistance continues against it, despite the fact that it is irreversibly part of the main IGF debate and agenda from now on. I insist that this group is getting behind ICANN itself, which is in a process of change (not as much or as quickly as many of us would like) and now seems clearly above this kind of resistance. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 7 18:12:20 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 18:12:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> I think Raul's initial email was a well-balanced one. He said, >>You raised other point that is if CIR related >>issues are or are not important for developing >>countries. And I agree with your approach and >>with some of the examples that you use. I think >>that they are important and have important impact >>in developing countries. >>But what to proceed so?, As someone connected to a RIR I am sure Raul understands the significance of these issues well, and can make his own decision about what other social problems are higher priorities. The poll he mentioned was related to "information society" issues so it is both broader than IG and has more specificity than "any policy issue." I think it is useful info. But Carlos and Guru are right to point out that certain people try to use such things to divert attention from cIr, and this needs to stop. My point: if you take a topic as broad as "info society," there are other critical issues, but we are not discussing the agenda of an "Information Society Forum", we are discussing the agenda of an INTERNET GOVERNANCE Forum. Within the (limited) domain of global internet governance, cIr is one of the most important issues, by any measure. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 8 03:28:00 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 12:58:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <46E183D1.5080805@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070908072817.1CC47678CF@smtp1.electricembers.net> While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on > critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true > that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet > Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the > financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I > understand that people fear debates on CIR. Jeannette But, do you find something strange in the fact that all those who were thoroughly involved in 'financing ICTD' debates and other related processes during the WSIS ARE the ones now calling for a discussion on CIRs (if you want I can list them out), and all those who say CIRs should not be discussed just because it may take attention away from the more important issue of access were NOWHERE to be seen in the WSIS financing debates (I can also list them)... I can also tell you that many of the most vocal in this current 'access is more important than CIRs' campaign (I refer mainly to the private sector, but also some others) actually sabotaged the 'financing ICTD' debates and possibilities of concrete action and follow up etc.... So, you can hardly blame us if our primary feeling towards this campaign is of being amused, and our language on this matter sometimes takes a somewhat sharp edge. And I also have in my recent email asked all those with this new interest in access and financing (which is all about different models) what have they to say about the removal of key points from 'access' agenda where models alternative to the dominant ones (including community owned and community based one, and those involving public finance - both terms, directly taken from the WSIS texts), are sought to be discussed as well. How does throttling such discussion impact 'access' and financing ICTD for the benefits of those currently excluded. What are your views on this, and well, those of others of the 'access is more important than CIRs' campaign? Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > Guru at ITfC schrieb: > > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either or' > > situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at the cost > of > > discussing access. > > > > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not any > > less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me it is > obvious > > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to > meaningful > > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have > > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe > that > > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the > rest, > > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' and > 'good > > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse? > > > > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the > current > > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio. > > > > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to > point > > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not what > she > > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth :- > ) > > Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right > that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is > somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I > described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on > critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true > that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet > Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the > financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I > understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I have always > argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet Governance in case > that is what you were asking about. > jeanette > > > > Guru > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > www.ITforChange.net | > > A man's worst difficulties begin when he is able to do as he > likes.~Thomas > > Huxley~ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > community > > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are what > >> most people in developing countries really care about. As long as they > >> are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the USG in > >> Internet Governance. > > > > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting > what > > she hears, not what she believes. > > > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at > the > > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of > > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries > don't > > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And > when > > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and > > that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums > were > > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line > of > > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > > > > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing > internet > > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom access > > facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just shut up about > > ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate into, oh, 230 > additional > > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > > > > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. It > may > > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments in > > countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds are > > diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism of > ICANN > > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate and > > inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for future > GigaNet > > symposia. > > > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we > are > > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't > even > > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are serious > > policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address > > distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is > just > > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who will be > the > > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. > > > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual > new > > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > > > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > > > > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. > But I > > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage > > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 WSIS > > debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to repeat > > ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of > > imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty policy issues > > there. > > > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own > domestic > > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules > for > > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been > written > > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules is > their > > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they > > equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a > > real discussion of these issues. > > > > --Milton Mueller > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > > 8:36 AM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sat Sep 8 03:43:25 2007 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITfC) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 13:13:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <20070908074332.4AA66678B2@smtp1.electricembers.net> Dear Raul "The problem is that some people tend to put this issue as the most important issue and I simply disagree. Just that." Sorry, but this is not the debate. The debate is on whether CIRs should be discussed at all and should be on the same plane as other themes. Some of us are arguing that we can't avoid discussing it, while others seem to have several reasons why either it should not be discussed or any discussion should be in a highly diluted/restricted form. Nobody (on this list at least) has said that CIR is the only issue or the most important one. I am glad that you agree that CIRs can and has to be discussed. Guru -----Original Message----- From: Raul Echeberria [mailto:raul at lacnic.net] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 2:32 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' Dear Carlos: The intention of my email was to explore other aspects of Milton's email that I found very interesting, but anyway let me make these clarifications: - Sorry for the mistake. If you say that is all the Brazilian community that is concerned about CIR now (not in 1994) is enough for me. I thought that I was recognizing that it was an important issue for Brazilian government, what I think is true. My apologies for the confusion. - The survey that I mentioned is very serious and valuable and the participants were mainly decision making people, not citizens in general. So, I think that we can take conclusions from it. - I don't know how many times I have said, including the email that you responded, that I am very fine with discussing CIR. The problem is that some people tend to put this issue as the most important issue and I simply disagree. Just that. - Since you were responding to my email, I don't know if you consider that LACNIC is part of the group that you mention, but any assertion from which could be interpreted that LACNIC is "behind ICANN" or behind any other organization or allied to the US Government or to any other government is simply something with no serious basis, and I don't understand what is the relation between this assertion and the content of my email. Warm Regads, Raúl At 04:15 p.m. 07/09/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >If we were to follow surveys like this, we would exclude many other >issues from the discussion -- using the same logic, who really cares >about IPR in our or any other region except the IPR business? Or net >neutrality, which most people do not know about but become shocked once >they know the grizzly details of the telcos' >pratices? Also, it is wrong to map the interest on CIRs in Brazil with >the Brazilian government >-- it goes quite beyond this, and it was a civil society + academic >mobilization in 1994-1995 (and in 2002 as well) which allowed Brazil to >establish a pluralist, non-profit governance system, directly related to CIRs. > >I continue to find curious that, despite the fact that all the other >issues are similary complex and relevant, only CIRs spark such strong >dedication against debating it on the part of the business community, >the US government and the people linked to the current global logical >infrastructure governance system >-- which, at the IGF, act practically as one voice. This was so in the >preparation of the agenda for Athens (when they succeeded in dropping >the issue entirely from the main >agenda) and resistance continues against it, despite the fact that it >is irreversibly part of the main IGF debate and agenda from now on. > >I insist that this group is getting behind ICANN itself, which is in a >process of change (not as much or as quickly as many of us would like) >and now seems clearly above this kind of resistance. > >frt rgds > >--c.a. > >Raul Echeberria wrote: >>Milton: >>It is a very interesting mail. >>As somebody coming from a developing country, I can tell you that the >>attention to the issue of Critical Internet Resources is very low in >>my region, with the exception of the Brazilian Government. >>In fact, it is very interesting the result of the survey conducted by >>ECLAC (Economic Commision for Latin America and the Caribbean). >>http://www.cepal.org/cgi-bin/getprod.asp?xml=/socinfo/noticias/paginas >>/8/26998/P26998.xml&xsl=/socinfo/tpl/p18f.xsl&base=/socinfo/tpl/top-bo >>ttom.xsl >> >>If you click in results you will see that Internet Governance in >>general (expression associated mainly to the CIR) is very low ranked. >>There are different rankings but in all of the this issue is ranked >>about position 37 in the list or priorities for the region regardind >>Information Society. >>So, It is clear that most of people in developing countries don't care >>about that. It is interesting to see that the participation in the >>survey was very diverse and balanced with a lot of people from >>governmnets, civil society, private sector and academic sector. >>This survey will be the base for the desinging of the Regional >>Information Society next 3 years plan. A new version of the survey >>will be issued next week. >>Probably some government will bring the issue to the table again >>before the Regional conference in El Salvador in November and probably >>it will become part of the plan, but it will not happen because it was >>defined as a priority, that's clear. >>This is for commenting what you said about your experience in the >>meeting in Oxford. >> >>Other thing is if both set of issues: CIR and development oriented >>issues are incompatibles and we can discuss abut only one of them. >>Clearly they are not. >>We can and we have to discuss both. But it is important to say that we >>have to discuss CIR because we think that it is important and we have >>to accept that saying that developing countries are worried about that >>is not a valid argument. >>You raised other point that is if CIR related issues are or are not >>important for developing countries. And I agree with your approach and >>with some of the examples that you use. I think that they are >>important and have important impact in developing countries. >>But what to proceed so?, If mainly people from developed countries, >>decided that this is important for developing countries despite de >>fact that those countrie don't identify these issues as important, we >>will be in the same situation that you criticized regarding Oxford >>meeting, and in fact my perception is that the participation of people >>from my region in IGF meeting in Rio will not be very large and most >>of us from LAC in Rio will be the "usual suspects" (including myself >>of course) . Hopefully I am wrong. >> >>So, we have to find out the balance. We can discuss anything but it is >>clear that most important issues for developing countries are those >>related with development. Should we stop to discuss CIR, no, but we >>can not use developing countries concerns as the justification for >>that. >>Is this important for Developing Countries? we think yes, but so, we >>have to work more for really engage them in the discussion and not let >>mainly people from the most developed part of the world, to decide >>based on what is their perception about developing countries needs. >> >>Raúl >> >>At 08:37 p.m. 06/09/2007, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all >>> > public attention although other issues, particularely access, are >>> > what most people in developing countries really care about. As >>> > long as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role >>> > of the USG in Internet Governance. >>> >>>It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately >>>reporting what she hears, not what she believes. >>> >>>And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it >>>at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room >>>full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing >>>countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about >>>development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the >>>room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had >>>raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South >>>Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of dialogue >>>came to a rather abrupt end. >>> >>>The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing >>>internet resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing >>>telecom access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would >>>just shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately >>>translate into, oh, 230 additional access lines in Kenya -- a net >>>value of about US$ 230,000. >>> >>>I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. >>>It may be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous >>>investments in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan >>>that funds are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's >>>criticism of ICANN unsettles international capital markets, raising >>>the interest rate and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there >>>is a topic for future GigaNet symposia. >>> >>>Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, >>>we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old >>>regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. >>>And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc >>>size of IPv6 address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant >>>to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to >>>developing countries, who will be the primary source of demand for >>>address space in the years to come. >>> >>>Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from >>>multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing >>>countries. >>> >>>Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. >>> >>>The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and dichotomies. >>>But I am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to >>>discourage discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in >>>the 2005 WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this >>>but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a >>>terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really >>>meaty policy issues there. >>> >>>As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own >>>domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world >>>where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name >>>market have been written in the USA. More important than the >>>geographic source of the rules is their >>>substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are >>>they equitable? >>>Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real >>>discussion of these issues. >>> >>>--Milton Mueller >>> >>> >>>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>>Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: >>>269.13.7/992 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 8:36 AM >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >-- > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 8 04:59:27 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:29:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF In-Reply-To: <46E18186.6090703@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070908085934.20FC5A6CA9@smtp2.electricembers.net> Jeanette I completely agree with the role you describe for civil society, and I am myself uncomfortable when some CS members start seek roles that require more of, as you say, some kind of constitutionalised basis and legitimacy. Though I also agree there is room for some structural innovations in the information society. But in our present discussion about the role of IGF, we have stayed well within the traditionally accepted roles for CS. > I see civil society more in an agenda setting and scandalizing role > because this fits well our loose network and movement based structure. And > I never said we should not be part of policy processes, I just think > that we should keep participating in an advisory and observer capacity. I agree very much. But IGF has no more than an agenda setting and advisory role, even with the most liberal interpretation of Tunis Agenda. And so CS should, and must, happily take up all involvement and power it can in this role - including of self-governance and speaking on own behalf (and not of the UN SG) and giving recommendations, which serve as an advise input into global Internet policy processes. So I don't see where the difference in our viewpoints lies... So, why should CS abstain from seeking its rightful position in agenda setting and advisory role, which is implied in (1) institutionalizing MAG as self-sufficient and self authorizing body, and (2) in IGF giving policy recommendations. It is strengthening of this role of IGF, along with that of its CS constituent - within the broad limits of an agenda setting and advisory role -that is the subject of discussion all along. And thanks for adding about a 'scandalizing' role for the CS - so leaking emails that deserve to be leaked is very much on :) Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:21 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Vittorio Bertola' > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF > > > > Parminder schrieb: > > > > > > Vittorio, > > > > > > > > Thanks for starting this subject line which I think is important. > > > > > > > >> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > > > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > > >> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > > > >> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > > > >> > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > > > >> > > > >> I agree with you on this. > > > > > > > > I will request further clarification of the implications of this new > > line of argument which is being advanced. First of all, it is obvious > > that no one is suggesting and/or offering any > > > > > > > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > > > policy processes > > > > > > > > to CS, and so I am unable to understand what is it that Jeanette and you > > are referring to here. I asked Jeanette specifically, but she never came > > back. > > I was busy, sorry. Binding policy processes was meant hypothetically. > No, nobody offers us such a role. One can still have a discussion on > whether or not such a role would be desirable. I think it would be not. > I see civil society more in an agenda setting and scandalizing role > because this fits well our loose network and movement based structure. > Binding decisions that affect third parties require some form of > constitution to be legitimate. Transnational civil society networks are > far from being constitutionalized. In fact, we exlude more people than > we include. This is why any formal decision-making authority would not > only cause severe legitimacy problems but would probably destroy our > structures. > I never said we should not be part of policy processes, I just think > that we should keep participating in an advisory and observer capacity. > > Obvious exceptions are organizations such as ICANN, which create > membership organizations and thus some form of constitutionalized basis > for a decision-making capacity. Come to think of it, ICANN embodies the > opposite case: a formalized participation structure for civil society > that lacks without any decision-making authority... > jeanette > > > > > > > > Do you NOT want CS to be part of any policy structure whatsoever, > > because the question of whom and how do we represent will come up > > everywhere? I can theoretically understand that position since I know > > people who hold such a view, but I haven't associated this position with > > most IGC members, especially the more active ones. They have actively > > been involved in policy processes in the last few years, influencing it > > in many ways. What has happened now, suddenly? Why did they all accept > > the membership of WGIG, for instance? I know that many proposals for an > > IGF kind of forum were made which had various kinds of decisions/ > > recommendation powers for it (One such proposal was made you also, > > Vittorio). Why did they make all inputs into WSIS processes, which was > > an exercise of political power on behalf of CS? On whose behalf, and > > with what legitimacy, was all that power/influence exercised? Do they > > have absolute faith that they were doing it in, and seen by others in, > > strictly their individual capacity? And what does individual capacity > > really mean in structures like the WGIG and IGF MAG where the > > composition is multistakeholder by quota, and in WSIS where there are > > only that many CS speaking slots. > > > > > > > > I will like to know what has changed now? It is that at that time there > > was this convenience of thinking that all CS thought alike, so power > > could be exercised in various ways, because the objectives were common > > and necessarily good for all... Is it that the IG CS structures cannot > > come to terms that there are people with different interests and > > worldviews, and we may need to discuss things internally a lot, and try > > to inch forward through labored consensus...(Governments, with very > > different perspectives do it all the time. That's politics.) > > > > > > > > How is it that while till now CS always seem to have called for a > > legitimate share in policy structures - which means a share in power > > structures - though understanding that complex issues of what can and > > cannot be legitimate arenas of CS involvement, and complexities of > > legitimizing representation, is a complex set of issues, and progress > > can only be made on this incrementally, through various innovations. We > > went through the whole WSIS phase with this belief, and CS works outside > > IS arena dealing with these complexities, with good overall > > effectiveness. But they do not give up their ideals, objectives and > > therefore the necessary politics because the means and structures of > > their activity are less than perfect. > > > > > > > > Why are we now calling for an empty shell IGF and further, even an empty > > shell IGC, ceasing all substantive outputs, and all politics. This new > > prescription of CS distrusting itself on how will it exercise power (we > > didn't distrust ourselves all this while)and spending time on perfecting > > empty processes (like kids cant be given real things to play with) in > > the IGF MAG and IGC itself is strange.... > > > > > > > > I will like to see what other stakeholders will say to this... other > > than be thoroughly amused. But they will be happy and feel justified. > > That's exactly what they said about CS all the while in resisting > > multistakeholder processes with CS representation. > > > > > > > > I recognize the need to perfect processes, and the nature of legitimacy > > as well as effectiveness of CS processes is an ongoing issue - of > > discussion, of research and of practice - worldwide. But no one in the > > CS ever gave this suggestion that lets cease our substantive objectives, > > and our politics, till we perfect our processes (which, given the > > intrinsic nature of the CS will be never) > > > > > > > > I must also make this observation - hoping everyone takes it as a point > > of necessary argument and not directed against anyone - that one needs > > to ponder on who is that can afford to cease politics... It is that who > > is satisfied with the status quo. One who wants change - more pressingly > > that one wants it - cant afford to suspend politics just for process > > perfection. It is an easy thing to see. And I remember your comment, > > Vittorio, in the .xxx debate that no position in politics is really > > neutral. Neither then is the position of suspending politics. > > > > > > > > (In light the above, wonder what you mean by ">Perhaps our future > role > > should just be that of substance-neutral )" > > > > > > > > We who are in these spaces just for seeking structural changes in > > favours of the disadvantaged people are not going to agree to suspend > > politics. That's our main job here... > > > > > > > > About the present effectiveness of the IGC, we all have our concerns and > > hopes.Jeremy listed all those things which were discussed/ adopted here > > first and then taken up at by the IGF. we are doing fine on adopting > > common positions. We set up a four part agenda for the IGF and we are > > having workshops on all the four. We have an IGC sponsored and conducted > > workshop for the first tie at the IGC, and we expect to be able to raise > > the level of this workshop on 'IGF mandate' to become an annual feature. > > There are many other things we can quote.. > > > > > > > > So for those - Jeanette, Wolfgang and Vittorio, in recent emails - who > > are asking us to distrust our own involvement with power (a new > > suggestion I must say in light our strong flirtations with it during > > WSIS) and seek suspension of politics in order to perfect the processes > > for some future use, I must also tell that we may be killing (I know I > > am repeating it from an earlier email) an important global governance > > innovation which provides a important role for civil society, which we > > won after some struggle (also due to some external conditions). By > > abdicating at this moment, do we think the processes will wait for us to > > take up positions of influence in them. The cast for the IGF is being > > set now, and we need to see what gains can be wrested NOW, and not wait > > till the structures are set and we handed our portion. If we need to > > carve out positions of influence for CS we need to work now. > > > > > > > > And on whose behalf would we take the decision to suspend politics and > > not represent any substantive views.there is some kind of de facto > > representation that IGC has for the wider global CS which would trust > > that we keep some general CS perspectives and interests in mind - > > carving positions of substantive influence for the CS constituency is > > definitely one of them. As I/ we trust similarly CS actors involved in > > other arenas which affect us, but for which we may not have > > time/specialization, like WIPO, environment, peace and disarmament, etc. > > > > > > > > I know we have some deep differences in the IGC, but these can only be > > overcome by open discussion.. That's why I took the cue form your email > > about what 'threatens the internet community' and sought an open and > > frank discussion on it.. Equally people should seek explanations of what > > may happen if we do too close an involvement with some governments and > > how it impacts short and long term CS interests.. Abdication, I repeat, > > will itself be a political move. And I don't agree to it. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > > > > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > > > >> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 2:39 PM > > > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > > > >> Cc: Parminder > > > >> Subject: [governance] Civil society and IGC role at the IGF > > > >> > > > >> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > > > >> > Hi, > > > >> > at this state of things I would argue very much against any formal > > > >> > decision making authority for the MAG. We are still in a state of > > > >> > experimenting with multi-stakeholder processes. For many governments > it > > > >> > is not easy to deal with a membership so heterogeneous in terms of > > > >> > authority and legitimacy. Even to acknowledge each other can be a > > > >> > challenge. Processes such as WGIG or the MAG need a protected space > in > > > >> > order to evolve. No decision-making power is one element of this > > > >> > protection. > > > >> > > > > >> > Another aspect: On this list I have repeatedly argued against any > > > >> > decision-making authority for civil society in binding international > > > >> > policy processes. Unless there are formal processes in place that > > > >> > specify on whose behalf we participate in decision-making I think we > > > >> > simply lack legitimacy to do so. > > > >> > > > >> I agree with you on this. But I also agree with you on the previous > > > >> point - even civil society needs a "protected space" in which it can > > > >> evolve credible procedures for internal decision-making, and > especially > > > >> picking representatives. Such representatives should initially not > have > > > >> any real role, but then, if the system works, they could have a bit > more > > > >> of it - for example, be members of an AG which has a certain > (limited) > > > >> steering role for the IGF process. > > > >> > > > >> In general, and also as a caucus co-coordinator, I see a pattern of, > er, > > > >> "dialogue" between AG members (representatives) and caucus membership > > > >> (constituents) that I've seen in other places, e.g. the At Large, both > > > >> from the membership and from the representative side. The membership > > > >> feels frustrated because the representatives aren't sharing each and > > > >> every detail of what they see, and will in some cases (for example > > > >> because there is no time to consult) act on their own. The > > > >> representatives feel frustrated because they usually post early calls > > > >> for input that go ignored, and then, at or after the deadline, members > > > >> complain that they didn't have opportunities to provide input. Reality > > > >> is that this relationship is complex, and is made more complex by the > > > >> fact that we're all very busy, very passionate, very bright, and very > > > >> egocentric. So I would suggest that rather than having exchanges (e.g. > > > >> see the one between Adam and Parminder) on who is the fault if this > > > >> channel of communication isn't always effective, we focus to use it > > > >> whenever there is momentum to do so. > > > >> > > > >> However, in the specific case of the IGC, I see it harder and harder > to > > > >> think that we can have common positions on substance. Perhaps our > future > > > >> role should just be that of substance-neutral and all-welcoming venue > > > >> for (s)electing civil society members of the AG - then let them follow > > > >> their views, and confirm/sack them according to their performance and > to > > > >> how much we collectively agree with what they say. It might be easier > > > >> and more effective than trying to agree on complex collective > > > >> statements, especially on issues where we know we differ a lot, every > > > >> two months. > > > >> -- > > > >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > > >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >> > > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > > > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Sep 8 06:20:08 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:20:08 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton is right and wrong. He is right that CIRs are an important issue with a growing development dimension. IPv6, new TLDs (gTLDs and iTLDs) and the launch of more Anycast Rootservers in Asia, Africa and Latin America (and its consequences for issues like DNSSec) is very obvious. I think everbody understands this. He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. The MAG has recommended just the same thingds Milton is proposing. I do not see any advise from the MAG to stop the discussion. There is no "Access vs.CIR" debate. For CIR the IGF offers one Plenary, six official workshops and a couple of more open workshops related to CIRs. What else you want? All issues mentioned will be discussed. And it will help to improve knowledge and understanding of the issue because again some nonsens was introduced in the debate last week in Geneva. So the sessions in Rio will both be educational and conceptual. The problem with the 5 - 7 experts, representing also main stakeholder groups aned views in the plenary was the result of an "either-or-debate". Some people did propse that only "experts" (also from outside the traditional ICANN/WSIS/WGIG/IGF camp like experts in theorie of international relations, global governance etc) shuld speak about CIR. Other said a purely expert debate without the main players (including the US government, ICANN and China) will remain rather abstract and makes no sense. The result was the compromise language you find in the published paper. But this waa for the plenary. There are plenty of opportunities to discuss more details in the workshops. It it comes to the ITU you should read the recent ITU report to get a feeling what the priorities of the ITU under its new SG are. The confusing point is that the EU, which provoked so many waves in September/October 2005 by proposing a "New Cooperation Model" (NewCoMo) is now totally silent. No NewCoMo on the table. But if somebody has a constructive forward looking idea, why not to use one of the IGF opportunities to try to find out what a NewCoMo could be? The IGF has nio decisions making capacity, but it has a potential to investigate and test new ideas and innovative approaches. In Meissen at the end of the Summer School on Internet Governance, we developed recently a formula for enhanced cooperation (Sigma EC3) which means that "enhanced cooperation" as "undefined" in the Tunis Agenda can be seen as a bottom up management process where elements of enhanced communication among players, enhanced coordination among instiutions and enhanced informal and formal cooperation among involved institutions are creatively interlinked. New forms like joint committees, liaisons, dynamic coalitions are emerging on a multistakeholder basis. The only thing which is still underdeveloped is the intergovernmental component of EC3 :-(((. Is there any government in the forest which is proposing at this stage a mandate for an intergovernmental codification conference towards an Internet Convention? Let me know if I missed something. This does not mean that everybody agrees with the present model. In contrary. There are the same controversial political and economic interests in the sky as they had been before Tunis. Probably this is waiting for Godeau at the moment (or for a new US administration)? Mr. Samuel Becket, could you be please a little bit more specific? What will happen? The main risk I see is that some governments - as a result of silence, inactivity and lack of consensus - may consider to act individuallyt and unilaterally. And it is not clear for me at this moment what the options for unilateralism in Internet Governance are and whether thisn would be good or bad. Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: lø 08-09-2007 00:12 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Raul Echeberria Emne: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' I think Raul's initial email was a well-balanced one. He said, >>You raised other point that is if CIR related >>issues are or are not important for developing >>countries. And I agree with your approach and >>with some of the examples that you use. I think >>that they are important and have important impact >>in developing countries. >>But what to proceed so?, As someone connected to a RIR I am sure Raul understands the significance of these issues well, and can make his own decision about what other social problems are higher priorities. The poll he mentioned was related to "information society" issues so it is both broader than IG and has more specificity than "any policy issue." I think it is useful info. But Carlos and Guru are right to point out that certain people try to use such things to divert attention from cIr, and this needs to stop. My point: if you take a topic as broad as "info society," there are other critical issues, but we are not discussing the agenda of an "Information Society Forum", we are discussing the agenda of an INTERNET GOVERNANCE Forum. Within the (limited) domain of global internet governance, cIr is one of the most important issues, by any measure. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Sep 8 08:38:15 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 08:38:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >Milton is right and wrong. >He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. Whena dn where did I say this? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Sep 8 08:45:16 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:45:16 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry, this was my impressio. If not even better. Than we have full consensus w ________________________________ Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sendt: lø 08-09-2007 14:38 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Emne: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' -----Original Message----- From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >Milton is right and wrong. >He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. Whena dn where did I say this? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 8 11:43:40 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 11:43:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> There are people (governmental and business interests and some in the technical community) who want to prevent discussion of cIr, or, failing that, neuter it, divert it or stack the deck. Some of those people are represented on the MAG. But IGF itself, if by IGF you mean simply the Secretariat and the MAG as a whole, has already recognized the need to discuss it. As with any such institution, it will respond to a number of voices and try to find a middle path agreeable to most. > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > Sorry, this was my impressio. If not even better. Than we have full > consensus > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > > >Milton is right and wrong. > > >He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. > > When and where did I say this? > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 14:32:37 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 21:32:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 9/7/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > MM > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums were Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > Well the Afri* folk I interact with daily certainly DO care about CIR issues, as for most it is part of their business to do so. However, these same folk care MUCH more about spreading the edge of the network. > >MM > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't even consider it because it would upset their control. Who is we? The "old regime" has been discussing this for many years. In fact, many feel this is inevitable. Many/most recognise that there are "gray" (and darker colored) markets in existence now. There are active discussions on multiple addressing related lists about this very topic. Please join if you want to have any policy making voice on this issue. MM > And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant to gain "expertise" in these fields. MM >The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But it is certainly relevant to >developing countries, who will be the primary source of demand for address space in the >years to come. > I'm not sure I buy this, but I have heard it before. 2 things make me doubt it: 1) IPv4 address consumption is nearing it's "end game". While growth of the rate of new subscribers in the North may have declined, there are still more folk with the cash to get online than in the South. This demand will be primarily IPv4. 2) the "Internet of things" will require many millions/billions of IPv6 addresses. I see this "Internet of things" happening first in the developed world, as that is where the cash is to build it first. (I use "", as only things (network interfaces) use IP addresses already, not people or countries.) MM > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > Agree, but, as you know, names aren't "critical" IMO. MM > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > This is losing "criticality" in my mind. We have know about the threats that DNSSEC can prevent for over 15 years, if the threats were so ominous we would have seen lots more attacks than we have seen. DNSSEC deployment is going to go forward because so many people ave invested so much of their time that it can't NOT be deployed. It remains to be seen how widely it will be embraced, even if/when the root is signed. >about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. I think you are projecting. > There are really meaty policy issues there. Absolutely, and there is only ONE way to influence decisions on these issues, and it's not the IGF. > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been written in the USA. This is completely incorrect for (getting IP space). Any "expert" in the field should know better. > More important than the geographic source of the rules is their substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a real discussion of these issues. Efficiency and promoting competition may be the criteria for names (I don't really care about names, as they are simply a "layer of misdirection" For address space the criteria are more about uniqueness, conservation and aggregation. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 14:33:21 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 11:33:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <20070908072817.1CC47678CF@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <000d01c7f246$d9e2a410$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Can I once again insert the comment (the discussion goes back some 5 years or so to parallel discussions that were held concerning the CS contributions to WSIS Geneva) that the issue of "access", especially as conventionally presented by telcos and service providers is really about marketing or developing new markets for their services. The issue from a "development" perspective is not "access" but the opportunity for "effective use" which includes but goes beyond access to involve training, language, hardware and software design, service design, funding and governance. All of which in one way or another are necessary components for ICTs to have a developmental impact on the ground. Following this current discussion at a distance it seems to me that the notion of "effective ICT use" rather bridges between "access" issues and CIR issues (while pushing both of these into the background) since CIRs are, along with basic "access" simply pre (but of course necessary) conditions for effective uses. I must say as well, that it is truly astonishing and perhaps a measure of how disconnected this particular segment of CS seems to be with the real world of ICTs (and developoment) on the ground, that we should be going over this same ground again after all this time. What it seems to me we should be arguing for from a "development" perspective is that the pre-conditions for the range of effective uses be put in place and by that I include things like community based e-health, community based e-resource management, community based e-enabled local economic development, community based e-learning initiatives, community based e-enabled emergency and disaster response, local e-governance and so on. Precisely what "access" or CIRs are required for these and the range of other effective uses, warrants a considerable measure of research and analysis by those best qualified to undertake this, but shifting the ground of debate from empty rhetoric concerning "access" or non-real world (including LDC's) discussions of CIRs to practical discussions on how to build a robust and democratic infrastructure to support these seems to me to be the appropriate task for CS and to be the basis for an appropriate intervention by CS into the IGF. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: September 8, 2007 12:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Guru at ITfC' Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on > critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true > that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet > Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the > financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I > understand that people fear debates on CIR. Jeannette But, do you find something strange in the fact that all those who were thoroughly involved in 'financing ICTD' debates and other related processes during the WSIS ARE the ones now calling for a discussion on CIRs (if you want I can list them out), and all those who say CIRs should not be discussed just because it may take attention away from the more important issue of access were NOWHERE to be seen in the WSIS financing debates (I can also list them)... I can also tell you that many of the most vocal in this current 'access is more important than CIRs' campaign (I refer mainly to the private sector, but also some others) actually sabotaged the 'financing ICTD' debates and possibilities of concrete action and follow up etc.... So, you can hardly blame us if our primary feeling towards this campaign is of being amused, and our language on this matter sometimes takes a somewhat sharp edge. And I also have in my recent email asked all those with this new interest in access and financing (which is all about different models) what have they to say about the removal of key points from 'access' agenda where models alternative to the dominant ones (including community owned and community based one, and those involving public finance - both terms, directly taken from the WSIS texts), are sought to be discussed as well. How does throttling such discussion impact 'access' and financing ICTD for the benefits of those currently excluded. What are your views on this, and well, those of others of the 'access is more important than CIRs' campaign? Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:31 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > Guru at ITfC schrieb: > > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either > > or' situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at > > the cost > of > > discussing access. > > > > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not > > any less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me > > it is > obvious > > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to > meaningful > > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have > > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe > that > > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the > rest, > > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' > > and > 'good > > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse? > > > > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the > current > > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio. > > > > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to > point > > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not > > what > she > > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth > > :- > ) > > Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right > that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is > somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I > described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion > on critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also > true that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on > Internet Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues > such as the financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. > This is why I understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I > have always argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet > Governance in case that is what you were asking about. jeanette > > > > Guru > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > www.ITforChange.net | A man's worst difficulties begin when he is > > able to do as he > likes.~Thomas > > Huxley~ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > community > > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are > >> what most people in developing countries really care about. As long > >> as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the > >> USG in Internet Governance. > > > > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately > > reporting > what > > she hears, not what she believes. > > > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it > > at > the > > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of > > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries > don't > > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. > > And > when > > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, > > and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global > > forums > were > > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that > > line > of > > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > > > > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing > internet > > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom > > access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just > > shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate > > into, oh, 230 > additional > > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > > > > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. > > It > may > > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments > > in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds > > are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism > > of > ICANN > > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate > > and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for > > future > GigaNet > > symposia. > > > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, > > we > are > > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime > > won't > even > > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are > > serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 > > address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL > > countries is > just > > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who > > will be > the > > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. > > > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from > > multilingual > new > > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > > > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > > > > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and > > dichotomies. > But I > > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage > > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 > > WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to > > repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible > > lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty > > policy issues there. > > > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own > domestic > > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the > > rules > for > > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been > written > > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules > > is > their > > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are > > they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we > > actually have a real discussion of these issues. > > > > --Milton Mueller > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: > > 9/6/2007 8:36 AM > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46e24f4786779876916210! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 8 16:16:34 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:16:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > MM >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant > to gain "expertise" in these fields. actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the threads: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html and IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a round to it, and the debate is still ongoing. but it is an interesting thread. a good and breif synopisis is: From: Keith Moore > Bob Braden wrote: > > In this whole discussion, I find it hard to keep separate the > > technical issues, about which the IETF should care a lot, from > > the business model and issues, about which the IETF should be > > agnostic. We may personally care a great deal about the business > > issues, but we cannot speak as an organization about them. > > > well, mumble. we shouldn't be biased toward any particular business > model. but there's nothing wrong with being biased towards > flexibility, > or being biased against the RIRs changing IETF decisions to favor a > particular business model. > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > second-guess IETF design decisions. definitely food for thought for the technopolitical geek. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 9 01:07:30 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 01:07:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4C2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Avri wrote: >actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the >threads: > >IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all http://www1.ietf.org/mail->archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > >and > >IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all] >http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html Thanks Avri. Good information, and also a really amusing demonstration of McTim's tendency to feign superior knowledge of technical-economic policy issues when, all too obviously, he is the one that needs to do a bit more reading.** The invitation to "join [the IETF/RIR lists] or read their archives" is not sincere. It's just his way of implying that others don't know anything about these issues, and that all dialogue should be confined to venues controlled by the RIRs. As I've written elsewhere (http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do?contentType=Article&contentId=1567443), I don't think anyone fully understands all of the issues that are about to hit us regarding IPv4 and v6 economics. That includes me, as well as the folks at the RIRs. That is why the dialogue needs to be opened up beyond the hard-core technical people to include economists and policy people as well as users. As Bob Braden suggested, IETF lists are probably not the right place to discuss economic and political issues pertaining to the allocation of technical resources. It seems to me that the IGF is the right place. ** If you'd take a look at the IGP blog's "Headlines in Internet Governance" you'll find no less than 3 of the latest 10 are about ARIN and IP addressing. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/ And if you did some searching of the research literature on allocation policies for virtual resources such as radio spectrum, digital identifiers, 800 numbers, telephone number portability, I suspect you'd see my name pop up a few times. I've been publishing on those issues since 1987. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 9 05:53:44 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:23:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <000d01c7f246$d9e2a410$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20070909095410.DDA736787E@smtp1.electricembers.net> I think that if all of us are concerned about the development potential and impact of the Internet, we should be seriously discussing what needs to be done about it in engagement with people who are in 'development' for long (it is not the intention to appropriate that position for myself). And do it as a mainstream activity here, and not in passing while discussing CIRs. That would be the proof of the pudding. And I remember McTim once asking for a discussion on 'right to development' to be taken off the list to where ever it belongs. In this respect it is not difficult to see, as Michael suggests, that we need to first analyze the whole field of the 'effects' of technical policy that we seek, and then work backwards on what kind of technical policy will suffice for such purposes. Putting it in terms of technical versus policy (or domain) expertise balance needed to develop technopolicy that Avri spoke of, we can accordingly build a proper protocol of relationship between and respective roles for the two. In analyzing what is really that we, as a society, want and most desire, domain/ policy expertise counts most (although a broad knowledge of technical possibilities is required) and once this is establish we can work backwards to see what technical options to take and pursue (and here technical expertise will count most). Obviously, both kinds of 'expertise' need to interact with each other in some mutual understanding and short cycles on interaction and mutual-influencing..... It is in this respect that when many techies just decide that they know THE social issue - of more and more 'access' to 'technology', and that's about it -we have a problem at hand. And that 'problem' is at the centre of our current discussions. And it is in this context that Michael has been presenting the very useful alternative conception of 'effective use' that goes further into the complexity of how exactly can, and does, Internet interact with and impact development processes... And it is just not about having only 'passive access' (a concept much deconstructed in development discourse). Some kind of technology availability may be considered a precondition for new tech based development processes, but 'technology' and 'access' themselves are not some givens - they themselves are shaped by their uses and other social contexts. So, it is not only about how 'technology' and 'access' that impacts 'development' but also the reverse - how concerns and context of 'development' impact the very nature of 'technology' and of 'access'. This is something that most of the 'technical community' is not very comfortable exploring. At present it has mostly been the concerns and context of Northern societies, and generally that of advantaged sections of all societies, that has influenced and shaped the development of Internet... We need to figure out what will it entail for 'development' concerns to start shaping the further development of Internet... that's the development issue in IG. So when a lot among the 'technical community' keep asserting again and again that they KNOW that the development issue is of spreading the edge of the Internet, and they will prefer to engage with it, rather than the 'divisive' and 'largely artificial' issues of the very nature of the Internet - which, at least partly, is determined by the nature of its governance - and (therefore) also the governance (including of its core) of the Internet, it well, bugs those who are involved in development activity. Because to them, the message that gets relayed is, WE MAKE THE TECHNOLOGY, YOU JUST USE IT. And what these people of the technical community either do not recognize or choose to ignore is that in this 'we' who wishes to appropriate the exclusive privilege of 'making and determining the technology' includes vested interests - big business, the rich people with more cash (a point from McTim's email which I will address separately), and countries of the North, in general - and in defending non-negotiation of the basic premises and principles governing technology development they are just being partisan to these interests. This is the basic nature of the interest that those involved in development activity have in engaging with IG, including discussing CIRs. And they do not like to be told that they do not understand their own problems and that they should concentrate on access and not other issues of IG like CIRs. 'Development' is not only about the edges of the network, it is also about the core.. 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: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > Can I once again insert the comment (the discussion goes back some 5 > years or so to parallel discussions that were held concerning the CS > contributions to WSIS Geneva) that the issue of "access", especially as > conventionally presented by telcos and service providers is really about > marketing or developing new markets for their services. > > The issue from a "development" perspective is not "access" but the > opportunity for "effective use" which includes but goes beyond access to > involve training, language, hardware and software design, service > design, funding and governance. All of which in one way or another are > necessary components for ICTs to have a developmental impact on the > ground. > > Following this current discussion at a distance it seems to me that the > notion of "effective ICT use" rather bridges between "access" issues and > CIR issues (while pushing both of these into the background) since CIRs > are, along with basic "access" simply pre (but of course necessary) > conditions for effective uses. > > I must say as well, that it is truly astonishing and perhaps a measure > of how disconnected this particular segment of CS seems to be with the > real world of ICTs (and developoment) on the ground, that we should be > going over this same ground again after all this time. > > What it seems to me we should be arguing for from a "development" > perspective is that the pre-conditions for the range of effective uses > be put in place and by that I include things like community based > e-health, community based e-resource management, community based > e-enabled local economic development, community based e-learning > initiatives, community based e-enabled emergency and disaster response, > local e-governance and so on. > > Precisely what "access" or CIRs are required for these and the range of > other effective uses, warrants a considerable measure of research and > analysis by those best qualified to undertake this, but shifting the > ground of debate from empty rhetoric concerning "access" or non-real > world (including LDC's) discussions of CIRs to practical discussions on > how to build a robust and democratic infrastructure to support these > seems to me to be the appropriate task for CS and to be the basis for an > appropriate intervention by CS into the IGF. > > 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: September 8, 2007 12:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeanette Hofmann'; 'Guru at ITfC' > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > While it is true that discussions on access and discussion on > > critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also true > > that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on Internet > > Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues such as the > > > financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. This is why I > > understand that people fear debates on CIR. > > Jeannette > > But, do you find something strange in the fact that all those who were > thoroughly involved in 'financing ICTD' debates and other related > processes during the WSIS ARE the ones now calling for a discussion on > CIRs (if you want I can list them out), and all those who say CIRs > should not be discussed just because it may take attention away from the > more important issue of access were NOWHERE to be seen in the WSIS > financing debates (I can also list them)... > > I can also tell you that many of the most vocal in this current 'access > is more important than CIRs' campaign (I refer mainly to the private > sector, but also some others) actually sabotaged the 'financing ICTD' > debates and possibilities of concrete action and follow up etc.... So, > you can hardly blame us if our primary feeling towards this campaign is > of being amused, and our language on this matter sometimes takes a > somewhat sharp edge. > > And I also have in my recent email asked all those with this new > interest in access and financing (which is all about different models) > what have they to say about the removal of key points from 'access' > agenda where models alternative to the dominant ones (including > community owned and community based one, and those involving public > finance - both terms, directly taken from the WSIS texts), are sought to > be discussed as well. How does throttling such discussion impact > 'access' and financing ICTD for the benefits of those currently > excluded. > > What are your views on this, and well, those of others of the 'access is > more important than CIRs' campaign? > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 10:31 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Guru at ITfC > > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > > community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > > > > > Guru at ITfC schrieb: > > > Completely agree with Milton .... Why is Access and CIR an 'either > > > or' situation? Why should discussion on CIR be perceived to be at > > > the cost > > of > > > discussing access. > > > > > > Redistribution of power (influence over governance processes) is not > > > any less vital an issue than the actual provision of access. To me > > > it is > > obvious > > > that such redistribution is a part and even a pre-requisite to > > meaningful > > > provision of equitable access. If some groups/countries have > > > disproportionate share of power/authority, what makes anyone believe > > that > > > the sharing of resources will not be in a manner inequitable to the > > rest, > > > who are out of this arrangement. Should we live on the 'goodness' > > > and > > 'good > > > intentions' of those in power, doling out largesse? > > > > > > It would be great for CS/IGC to come out speaking for reform of the > > current > > > arrangements towards greater democratization in Rio. > > > > > > On a lighter vein ... On Milton's statement that "It is important to > > point > > > out that Jeanette is just accurately reporting what she hears, not > > > what > > she > > > believes", it would be interesting to hear it from the horse's mouth > > > :- > > ) > > > > Hi Guru, I don't think of myself as a horse. Whatever. Milton is right > > that I was reporting about what I hear people say. My own position is > > somewhat inbetween the one that Milton expressed and the one that I > > described. While it is true that discussions on access and discussion > > on critical internet resourses don't exclude each other, it is also > > true that public attention is limited. During WSIS, the debate on > > Internet Governance was so dominant that other controversial issues > > such as the financing of ICTs never got the attention it deserved. > > This is why I understand that people fear debates on CIR. Personally I > > > have always argued in favor of discussing the future of Internet > > Governance in case that is what you were asking about. jeanette > > > > > > Guru > > > IT for Change, Bangalore > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > www.ITforChange.net | A man's worst difficulties begin when he is > > > able to do as he > > likes.~Thomas > > > Huxley~ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:07 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > > > Subject: RE: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet > > community > > > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> 2. A debate on critical Internet resources that absorbs almost all > > >> public attention although other issues, particularely access, are > > >> what most people in developing countries really care about. As long > > > >> as they are not online they don't give a damn about the role of the > > > >> USG in Internet Governance. > > > > > > It is important to point out that Jeanette is just accurately > > > reporting > > what > > > she hears, not what she believes. > > > > > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it > > > at > > the > > > Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of > > > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries > > don't > > > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. > > > And > > when > > > I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, > > > and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global > > > forums > > were > > > Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that > > > line > > of > > > dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > > > > > > The theory here seems to be that time and energy spent discussing > > internet > > > resource policy is purchased at the expense of developing telecom > > > access facilities. So, for example, if Milton Mueller would just > > > shut up about ICANN for 30 days, this would immediately translate > > > into, oh, 230 > > additional > > > access lines in Kenya -- a net value of about US$ 230,000. > > > > > > I don't know whether the economics of this have been worked out yet. > > > It > > may > > > be that my interventions in ICANN require such enormous investments > > > in countermeasures from the USG, the World Bank and Japan that funds > > > > are diverted from global foreign aid. It may be that IGP's criticism > > > > of > > ICANN > > > unsettles international capital markets, raising the interest rate > > > and inverting the yield curve on bonds. Now there is a topic for > > > future > > GigaNet > > > symposia. > > > > > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, > > > we > > are > > > starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime > > > won't > > even > > > consider it because it would upset their control. And there are > > > serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc size of IPv6 > > > address distributions. The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL > > > countries is > > just > > > crazy. But it is certainly relevant to developing countries, who > > > will be > > the > > > primary source of demand for address space in the years to come. > > > > > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from > > > multilingual > > new > > > TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > > > > > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > > > > > > The challenge is indeed to move beyond old divisions and > > > dichotomies. > > But I > > > am afraid that the ISOC-US crowd, or those who attempt to discourage > > > discussion of these issues, are the ones who are stuck in the 2005 > > > WSIS debates. They think there is nothing to say about this but to > > > repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from showing a terrible > > > lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. There are really meaty > > > policy issues there. > > > > > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own > > domestic > > > ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the > > > rules > > for > > > getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have been > > written > > > in the USA. More important than the geographic source of the rules > > > is > > their > > > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are > > > they equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we > > > actually have a real discussion of these issues. > > > > > > --Milton Mueller > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.7/992 - Release Date: > > > 9/6/2007 8:36 AM > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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:2676,46e24f4786779876916210! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 9 06:14:52 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 15:44:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070909101500.105F4E053B@smtp3.electricembers.net> > 1) IPv4 address consumption is nearing it's "end game". While growth > of the rate of new subscribers in the North may have declined, there > are still more folk with the cash to get online than in the South. > This demand will be primarily IPv4. > > 2) the "Internet of things" will require many millions/billions of > IPv6 addresses. I see this "Internet of things" happening first in the > developed world, as that is where the cash is to build it first. (I > use "", as only things (network interfaces) use IP addresses already, > not people or countries.) McTim You are quite forthright in describing what leads the development of the Internet - CASH. Whoever got it, Internet follows him. Do you think there could be other models of Internet's further development other than a blind drive toward more cash ( I say this at the risk of once again annoying Milton :)).... Probably a model that mixes cash or purely market-driven shaping of the Internet with some more clearly social concerns - development among them... Have you ever thought of it.... Or are you of the neo-liberal brigade which believes that whether it is a social cause, or cultural arena, or about poor and disadvantaged, or about countries who have historically been disadvantaged systematically, about basic rights like health and education, or about family life, or about community relationships, whatever - unbridled markets, and markets alone are the perfect solution. Everything else is perfidy. 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: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community > or 'who is afraid of the IGF' > > On 9/7/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > MM > > And I have heard this argument many times before. Indeed, I heard it at > the Oxford Internet Institute conference last year, where a room full of > British, Americans and Europeans insisted that developing countries don't > care about the CIR issues, they care about development and access. And > when I pointed out that no one in the room was from a developing country, > and that the parties who had raised the issue repeatedly in global forums > were Brazil, South Africa, China and a other developing countries, that > line of dialogue came to a rather abrupt end. > > > > Well the Afri* folk I interact with daily certainly DO care about CIR > issues, > as for most it is part of their business to do so. However, these > same folk care MUCH > more about spreading the edge of the network. > > > > > > >MM > > Anyway, in a period where we are about to run out of IPv4 addresses, we > are starting a debate on markets for IP addresses and the old regime won't > even consider it because it would upset their control. > > Who is we? The "old regime" has been discussing this for many years. > In fact, many feel this is inevitable. Many/most recognise that there > are "gray" (and darker colored) markets in existence now. There are > active discussions on multiple addressing related lists about this > very topic. Please join if you want to have any policy making voice > on this issue. > > MM > > And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the bloc > size of IPv6 address distributions. > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > MM > >The idea that CIR is not relevant to ALL countries is just crazy. But > it is certainly relevant to >developing countries, who will be the > primary source of demand for address space in the >years to come. > > > > I'm not sure I buy this, but I have heard it before. 2 things make me > doubt it: > > 1) IPv4 address consumption is nearing it's "end game". While growth > of the rate of new subscribers in the North may have declined, there > are still more folk with the cash to get online than in the South. > This demand will be primarily IPv4. > > 2) the "Internet of things" will require many millions/billions of > IPv6 addresses. I see this "Internet of things" happening first in the > developed world, as that is where the cash is to build it first. (I > use "", as only things (network interfaces) use IP addresses already, > not people or countries.) > > MM > > Likewise, most growth in domain name markets will come from multilingual > new TLDs, which are most relevant to developing countries. > > > > Agree, but, as you know, names aren't "critical" IMO. > > MM > > Not to mention DNSSEC, another critical CIR issue. > > > > This is losing "criticality" in my mind. We have know about the > threats that DNSSEC can prevent for over 15 years, if the threats were > so ominous we would have seen lots more attacks than we have seen. > DNSSEC deployment is going to go forward because so many people ave > invested so much of their time that it can't NOT be deployed. It > remains to be seen how widely it will be embraced, even if/when the > root is signed. > > > > >about this but to repeat ITU-ICANN Punch and Judy show. Aside from > showing a terrible lack of imagination, this is irresponsible. > > I think you are projecting. > > > There are really meaty policy issues there. > > Absolutely, and there is only ONE way to influence decisions on these > issues, and it's not the IGF. > > > > > As physical access in developing countries grows, and as their own > domestic ISP market increases in size, they will inherit a world where the > rules for getting IP addresses and entering the domain name market have > been written in the USA. > > This is completely incorrect for (getting IP space). Any "expert" in > the field should know better. > > > More important than the geographic source of the rules is their > substance: are they efficient, do they encourage competition, are they > equitable? Perhaps at Rio we can move beyond Tunis if we actually have a > real discussion of these issues. > > Efficiency and promoting competition may be the criteria for names (I > don't really care about names, as they are simply a "layer of > misdirection" For address space the criteria are more about > uniqueness, conservation and aggregation. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 9 11:39:56 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:09:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: Suggested Guidelines for NominationsCommittee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <200708221749.l7MHnmvH010994@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070909154012.9570AA6CAB@smtp2.electricembers.net> Philippe Will you want to declare what happened with the GAID steering committee nomination process (we did discuss it in Geneva recently, but it is good to declare it here as well), and what do we intend to do with nominations for the strategy council I am only taking suggestions form everyone here, and not necessarily implying CONGO must take this role up. I am afraid CS will completely lose out in the new post-WSIS multistakeholder processes. And the absence of any self-organizing process of CS will be used by the powers-that-be to make it into a system of ‘nominating’ CS ‘reps’ from the top, which serves to create the illusion of CS representation without it really being so. And then in the name of CS involvement and multistakeholderism dominant ideological and policy positions can get promoted, which leaves us worse off them without any multistakeholder structures at all. I wonder if there are actors here who have any interest in this issue. Is so, we may need to act now. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:20 PM To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: Suggested Guidelines for NominationsCommittee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee Importance: High Dear all, For your information and based on your feedback, I proposed this process to the 25 CS members of GAID structures. It includes most of the comments made so far, while keeping them somewhat flexible. We will try to make this process as simple and as little time-consuming as possible, given the timelines. It is of course understood that a nomination process for GAID Strategy Council membership should be wider and more inclusive. Thanks for your understanding. Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:philippe.dam at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi, 22. août 2007 18:45 À : 'CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam'; 'GAID-CS' Cc : 'kayadi at planet.tn'; 'rodrigob at cdi.org.br'; 'bruck at research.at'; 'Astrid.Dufborg at gesci.org'; 'hiroshikawamura at attglobal.net'; 'jlongmore at dotrust.org'; 'tracey at traceynaughton.com'; 'bnnrc at siriusbb.com'; 'st.amour at isoc.org'; 'wanyeki at iconnect.co.ke'; 'rinalia at gkpsecretariat.org.my'; 'alain.berranger at gmail.com'; 'iza at anr.org'; 'qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw'; 'rbissio at chasque.apc.org'; 'dcogburn at syr.edu'; 'pape.diouf at iued.unige.ch'; 'drake at hei.unige.ch'; 'ershova at iis.ru'; 'anriette at apc.org'; 'gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU'; 'akigua at telia.com'; 'wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de'; 'jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu'; 'george.sadowsky at attglobal.net'; 'Henning.Wegener at t-online.de'; 'titi at mindset.co.za'; 'Renate Bloem' Objet : Suggested Guidelines for Nominations Committee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee Importance : Haute Dear all, As you know the GAID Secretariat recently circulated a note on the partial renewal of the membership of the GAID governing structures. In particular, it was announced that one of the two seats reserved to civil society representatives in the GAID Steering Committee should be renewed before the next Steering Meeting taking place in New York on 19 September 2007. The GAID Secretariat invited civil society to identify nominations from among their constituencies, through a self-nomination process. Timelines for the renewal of Steering Committee membership are as follows: GAID Steering Committee Deadline for outgoing members to express their interest in a renewal of their terms 15 August 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 1 September 2007 Date of the membership renewal 19 September 2007 New York Based on the experiences of the CS Nomination Committee for the IGF Advisory Group and GAID governing structures in the first half of 2006, we proposed that we use of similar model for this process. However, due to the very short time available and to the fact that only one seat is going to be renewed, and in order to increase the representative ownership of the nomination to be done, we also proposed that a Nominations Committee to submit a recommendation for the member of the Steering Committee should be identified among the outgoing civil society members of the GAID Strategy Council and High Level Panel of Advisors. Those two proposals received several supports among CS constituencies. Selection of the CS Nominations Committee Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. Out of the 25 civil society members of the Strategy Council and of the High Level Panel of Advisors (see list attached), at least 5 individuals should volunteer to serve within the Nominations Committee. The final number of members of the Nominations Committee could be flexible (preferably between 5 and 10 persons). They would act in their personal capacities. Volunteers should announce their wish to participate in the Nominations Committee no later than Friday 24 August 2007 at 12:00 am GMT. The NomCom’s final recommendations would have to be forwarded to the GAID Executive Director no later than 1 September 2007. The work of the Nominations Committee would be facilitated by a non-voting facilitator (I propose my service to serve in that capacity and to use the CONGO website for more transparency and updates if needed). Thanks for your attention. We will try to make it as simple as possible for volunteers serving in the nominations committee. I’ll circulate some more information on proposed timelines for identification of candidates and proposed guidelines for selection tomorrow. Looking forward to your reactions. All the best, Philippe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 21:11:40 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:11:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> Message-ID: Hi Avri, On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > MM > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > threads: > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's hardly "serious policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the rounds (which I haven't seen). As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match their requirements. > > and > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all] > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > round to it, > and the debate is still ongoing. > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > but it is an interesting thread. > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > second-guess IETF design decisions. The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where they can actually make a difference. Milton. I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, the IGF is the place to be. I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you can make a hyperlink ;-) Parminder I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken out of a statement, not "off the list". Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest of your first reply. As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my home state. I don't think it's the same tho. I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I don't much care. -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Sep 10 00:09:25 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:09:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... Message-ID: Everyone, I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic at IGF. Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is ticking. Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> Hi Avri, On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > MM > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > threads: > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's hardly "serious policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the rounds (which I haven't seen). As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match their requirements. > > and > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all] > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > round to it, > and the debate is still ongoing. > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > but it is an interesting thread. > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > second-guess IETF design decisions. The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where they can actually make a difference. Milton. I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, the IGF is the place to be. I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you can make a hyperlink ;-) Parminder I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken out of a statement, not "off the list". Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest of your first reply. As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my home state. I don't think it's the same tho. I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I don't much care. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 00:29:56 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:29:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <999675.92024.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all I have been trying to follow the discussion on the speakers part , and I was wondering he same.! We are close to the Conference ! Shaila Rao Mistry California Lee McKnight wrote: Everyone, I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic at IGF. Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is ticking. Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> Hi Avri, On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > MM > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think it > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. I > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really wwant > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > threads: > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's hardly "serious policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the rounds (which I haven't seen). As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match their requirements. > > and > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all] > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > round to it, > and the debate is still ongoing. > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > but it is an interesting thread. > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > second-guess IETF design decisions. The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where they can actually make a difference. Milton. I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, the IGF is the place to be. I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you can make a hyperlink ;-) Parminder I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken out of a statement, not "off the list". Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest of your first reply. As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my home state. I don't think it's the same tho. I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I don't much care. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Jeene ke hain chaar din, baaqi hain bekaar din Jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye ! Ek baar jo jaaye, jawaani phir na aaye ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 10 00:39:27 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:09:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > at IGF. > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a scheme for this within the next 24 hours. 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > Everyone, > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > at IGF. > > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. > > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is > ticking. > > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? > > Lee > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> > Hi Avri, > > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > MM > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think > it > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. > I > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really > wwant > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > > threads: > > > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's > hardly "serious > policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the > rounds (which I haven't seen). > > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match > their requirements. > > > > > and > > > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after > all] > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > > round to it, > > and the debate is still ongoing. > > > > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the > ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general > discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > > > > but it is an interesting thread. > > > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. > > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where > they can actually make a difference. > > Milton. > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most > (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines > and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does > just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, > the IGF is the place to be. > > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, > critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you > can make a hyperlink ;-) > > Parminder > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken > out of a statement, not "off the list". > > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the > germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest > of your first reply. > > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it > sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my > home state. I don't think it's the same tho. > > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. > > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I > don't much care. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 01:39:37 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:09:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> I had not seen the deadline for submitting names for panelists - and I now see that it is the day after, on the 12th. I would say it is rather short... but we need to do what we can for this. So, I will suggest that everyone gives names for panelists to vittorio's and my email id. NOT TO THE IGC ID, because if there is to be a selection process, which we still have to discuss and finalize, it wont be right to have all names in public first. Each suggested name should be specific to one of the five main thematic panels plus one for the emerging issues panel. Please add two to four lines justifying why these names are appropriate for the panels and also why they should be FORWARDED BY OR THROUGH THE IGC as speakers.... (1) Some involvement with the IGC or other collective CS processes is preferable, but not necessary if the suggested person and her perspectives STRONGLY meet the condition 2 and/or 3 below. I put this criterion because we are a platform of collective CS action, and panelists can also be suggested directly to the IGF secretariat by any person. (2) While suggesting names, it is important to keep in mind various positions and perspectives that have been adopted and/ or strongly discussed in the IGC. In general, 'progressive' views normally associated with civil society should also be a criterion. (3) Representing a 'CS view' or 'IGC view' is am important but not the only objective of this process, and if some speakers can be expected to greatly contribute in enriching the debate in the respective thematic area, that should itself be a good justification. (4) Diversity of geography, gender, technical/ developmental/ social background, special interest groups etc should be kept in mind. (5) As per some discussions on this list, it will also be useful to connect workshops to main themes through suggesting panelists from among workshop speakers. (6) anyone recommended should already be planning to be in rio. (these criterion will be further evolved if a selection process is adopted. Vittorio is still to give his comments, but I thought I should start the process because there isnt much time) I will request the secretariat to extend the deadline to 17th so we have a week, but I cant be sure they will do it. Others who have some leverage with the secretariat may also try to do so. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:09 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; 'Avri > Doria' > Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > at IGF. > > > > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a > scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM > > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > Everyone, > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > at IGF. > > > > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. > > > > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but > > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is > > ticking. > > > > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators > > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > School of Information Studies > > Syracuse University > > +1-315-443-6891office > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> > > Hi Avri, > > > > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > MM > > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think > > it > > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. > > I > > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really > > wwant > > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > > > > > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > > > threads: > > > > > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > > > > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's > > hardly "serious > > policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the > > rounds (which I haven't seen). > > > > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities > > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are > > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match > > their requirements. > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after > > all] > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > > > > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > > > round to it, > > > and the debate is still ongoing. > > > > > > > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the > > ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I > > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general > > discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > > > > > > > but it is an interesting thread. > > > > > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > > > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > > > The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like > > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. > > > > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is > > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would > > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, > > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this > > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where > > they can actually make a difference. > > > > Milton. > > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most > > (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading > > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, > > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines > > and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute > > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does > > just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, > > the IGF is the place to be. > > > > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of > > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on > > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to > > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, > > critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it > > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you > > can make a hyperlink ;-) > > > > Parminder > > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken > > out of a statement, not "off the list". > > > > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy > > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the > > germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to > > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest > > of your first reply. > > > > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it > > sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota > > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my > > home state. I don't think it's the same tho. > > > > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in > > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a > > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for > > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. > > > > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I > > don't much care. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 01:52:39 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 22:52:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 3:48 PM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote: >At 12:31 9/7/2007 -0700, you wrote: >>The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective. My call >>is for effective ads, not just any old ads. > >Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;) I'll be interested if he does. The ad that he provided as an example appears to be incoherent when one evaluates the combination of audience targeting, strategic messaging and media placement (these considerations are completely interdependent and cannot be separated from one another -- they must be evaluated as a package). Anyone who has ever worked at an authoritative level in the advertising or marketing profession (like, say, at an ad agency in a creative/strategic role, or perhaps in the publishing/ad-sales/marketing department of a print periodical [not the editorial department], or perhaps even in a media placement service) would recognize this example as systematically unprofessional (as long as they were brought up to speed on the full details of ICANN's activities and the specific goal of such an ad). >>Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for >>ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed. > >You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that >generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't >like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would >be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren >mentioned will continue to be a fact. This "simple fact" appears never to have been properly tested in the first place, at least according to the evidence of the ad presented here. If the whole ad process is executed properly and professionally, then I won't object if the response continues to be weak. But as long as the ad process continues to be similarly unprofessional, you really can't tell anything about the audience response. It's as if you spoke to someone unintelligibly, and interpreted a non-response as stupidity or lack of interest instead of your failure to communicate. I will only complain when the process is flawed. This example was clearly flawed, and any competent advertising professionals can confirm it for you, if they know enough about ICANN and the policy domain it genuinely addresses (as opposed to the policy domain it clams to address officially). The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general public. If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" organization that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible policy ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response. I mean, why does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place? If it has that, how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.? The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is not of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public. If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much more attention from the general public. In a strange way I suspect that ICANN doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get that attention. This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either intentional or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public input into policy making that the general public is increasingly interested in. "Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, ICANN? This confusion of mission and identity is at the core of all of these problems. And frankly, if this isn't sorted out then whoever designs the ad campaigns doesn't have the full ability to put together an effective general-public ad campaign, because superiors would be constraining (and importantly distorting and thus undermining) the message they would allow to be included in any ads. This a "double-bind" situation, and it is systematically dysfunctional. It is quite possible that the failure of the execution of the ad campaign is simply a reflection of that institutional dysfunction, systematically obstructing the professionalism of the ad campaign. 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Sep 10 03:28:37 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:28:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070910072842.9E8361FCA77@mail.gn.apc.org> hi I guess there'll also be some names coming in from dynamic coalitions? (thinking in particular ofr the privacy and A2K coalitions..) - how's communication between the IGC and the other dynamic coalitions? of course, the more sources of input the better, but also nice to coordinate i'll certainly suggest the privacy coalition put a few names together.. and i assume robin gross will be on the out and out for ideas from her networks.. have to say i missed this call altogether.. is it in the minutes of the MAG meeting? would be good if it was a little clearer on the website.. karen >Each suggested name should be specific to one of the five main thematic >panels plus one for the emerging issues panel. Please add two to four lines >justifying why these names are appropriate for the panels and also why they >should be FORWARDED BY OR THROUGH THE IGC as speakers.... > >(1) Some involvement with the IGC or other collective CS processes is >preferable, but not necessary if the suggested person and her perspectives >STRONGLY meet the condition 2 and/or 3 below. I put this criterion because >we are a platform of collective CS action, and panelists can also be >suggested directly to the IGF secretariat by any person. > >(2) While suggesting names, it is important to keep in mind various >positions and perspectives that have been adopted and/ or strongly discussed >in the IGC. In general, 'progressive' views normally associated with civil >society should also be a criterion. > >(3) Representing a 'CS view' or 'IGC view' is am important but not the only >objective of this process, and if some speakers can be expected to greatly >contribute in enriching the debate in the respective thematic area, that >should itself be a good justification. > >(4) Diversity of geography, gender, technical/ developmental/ social >background, special interest groups etc should be kept in mind. > >(5) As per some discussions on this list, it will also be useful to connect >workshops to main themes through suggesting panelists from among workshop >speakers. > >(6) anyone recommended should already be planning to be in rio. > >(these criterion will be further evolved if a selection process is adopted. >Vittorio is still to give his comments, but I thought I should start the >process because there isnt much time) > >I will request the secretariat to extend the deadline to 17th so we have a >week, but I cant be sure they will do it. Others who have some leverage with >the secretariat may also try to do so. > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:09 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; 'Avri > > Doria' > > Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > > at IGF. > > > > > > > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a > > scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > > > 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM > > > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > > Everyone, > > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > > at IGF. > > > > > > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. > > > > > > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but > > > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock is > > > ticking. > > > > > > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators > > > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > > School of Information Studies > > > Syracuse University > > > +1-315-443-6891office > > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> > > > Hi Avri, > > > > > > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > > MM > > > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > > > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think > > > it > > > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > > > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. > > > I > > > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really > > > wwant > > > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > > > > threads: > > > > > > > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > > > > > > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's > > > hardly "serious > > > policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the > > > rounds (which I haven't seen). > > > > > > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities > > > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are > > > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match > > > their requirements. > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after > > > all] > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > > > > > > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > > > > round to it, > > > > and the debate is still ongoing. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the > > > ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I > > > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general > > > discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > > > > > > > > > > but it is an interesting thread. > > > > > > > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > > > > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > > > > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > > > > > The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like > > > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. > > > > > > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is > > > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would > > > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, > > > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this > > > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where > > > they can actually make a difference. > > > > > > Milton. > > > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most > > > (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading > > > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, > > > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines > > > and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute > > > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does > > > just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, > > > the IGF is the place to be. > > > > > > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of > > > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on > > > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to > > > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, > > > critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it > > > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you > > > can make a hyperlink ;-) > > > > > > Parminder > > > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken > > > out of a statement, not "off the list". > > > > > > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy > > > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the > > > germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to > > > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest > > > of your first reply. > > > > > > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it > > > sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota > > > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my > > > home state. I don't think it's the same tho. > > > > > > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in > > > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a > > > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for > > > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. > > > > > > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I > > > don't much care. > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > > > > McTim > > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 03:52:30 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:22:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070910075241.E341B678ED@smtp1.electricembers.net> > If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" > organization > that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy > organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible > policy > ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response. ........ (snip) > > The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is > not > of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a > more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public. > > If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public > policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much > more > attention from the general public. In a strange way I suspect that ICANN > doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does > want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self > image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get > that > attention. > > This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either > intentional > or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public > input into policy making that the general public is increasingly > interested > in. Thanks Dan for an excellent exposition of what you rightly describe as the 'core problem'. I will like to recommend you for the CIRs main session to just put forward this simple and clear formulation of the main issue or problem around CIR governance. >"Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, ICANN? I add my voice to this central question. 'to be or not to be' is something ICANN must clearly decide on and come out publicly with - whether it is merely a technical organization, whether it does public policy, if so, in what areas, and with what legitimacy and representation. Can we as stakeholders and those affected by ICANN's activities just ask ICANN to come out with a public statement and white paper on this issue. All kinds of participation into ICANN processes spoken of on this list can only follow such a statement, and an open discussion around it. We would then at least know what are we participating in. for instance, I myself have no intention to participate in any technical function - which I find myself inadequate for, as also not interested in. On the issue of the public policy issues ICANN deals with >The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was >making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom >of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher >likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general >public. I will add 'development' to the list. I mean, why > does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property > constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place? If it has that, > how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the > NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.? I will also add 'development constituency'. I have no problems with ICANN that does only technical regulation and no public policy. Someone has to do tech regulation and ICANN seems to have the people with tech expertise and probably good systems in place as well. My problem is with the ICANN which does public policy, in an underhand self-denying manner Dan describes. But, to take the issue to the role of the wider CS engaged in IG issues, it is not enough to say ICANN should not do public policy. Someone needs to do it, and if we are not able to put our finger on who should, the nearest involved people/ organization will do it by default, through action that may not be labeled 'public policy'. There is no option to this - policy/power vacuums get filled automatically. And therefore if we say ICANN shouldn't so public policy, CS should puts its attention and energy to figure out who should. Keep the Core Neutral campaign seem to suggest that national governments should do it, but I think this is not an adequate solution for at least two reasons. (1) in the information society there are many, an ever increasing number of, issues that defy national boundaries - IPR and trademarks, content, e-commerce, cyber crime etc etc... (2) in a spirit of global solidarity, civil society has always looked at international instruments - of soft as well as hard law - to ensure human rights - civil, political, social and economic. Pushing the domain of Internet public policy exclusively to national domains will not be right, and not in civil society's interest. We should instead look at the necessary global Internet public policy processes, and seek to influence them towards our cherished objectives. The dynamic coalition on 'framework of principles for the Internet' attempts to engage with such processes, and also seeks to initiate a civil society led process for starting to develop a framework of public policy principles that should be adopted globally. In absence of such principles and public policy processes, either ICANN continues to do Internet public policy or we have completely statist versions operating within different national domains, which defeats many of the basic purposes of the civil society to get together for a world summit on the information society, and try to stick together thereafter. Best 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: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 11:23 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) > > At 3:48 PM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote: > >At 12:31 9/7/2007 -0700, you wrote: > >>The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective. My > call > >>is for effective ads, not just any old ads. > > > >Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;) > > I'll be interested if he does. > > The ad that he provided as an example appears to be incoherent when one > evaluates the combination of audience targeting, strategic messaging and > media placement (these considerations are completely interdependent and > cannot be separated from one another -- they must be evaluated as a > package). > > Anyone who has ever worked at an authoritative level in the advertising or > marketing profession (like, say, at an ad agency in a creative/strategic > role, or perhaps in the publishing/ad-sales/marketing department of a > print > periodical [not the editorial department], or perhaps even in a media > placement service) would recognize this example as systematically > unprofessional (as long as they were brought up to speed on the full > details of ICANN's activities and the specific goal of such an ad). > > > > >>Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for > >>ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed. > > > >You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that > >generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't > >like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would > >be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren > >mentioned will continue to be a fact. > > This "simple fact" appears never to have been properly tested in the first > place, at least according to the evidence of the ad presented here. If > the > whole ad process is executed properly and professionally, then I won't > object if the response continues to be weak. But as long as the ad > process > continues to be similarly unprofessional, you really can't tell anything > about the audience response. It's as if you spoke to someone > unintelligibly, and interpreted a non-response as stupidity or lack of > interest instead of your failure to communicate. > > I will only complain when the process is flawed. This example was clearly > flawed, and any competent advertising professionals can confirm it for > you, > if they know enough about ICANN and the policy domain it genuinely > addresses (as opposed to the policy domain it clams to address > officially). > > > The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was > making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom > of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher > likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general > public. > > If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" > organization > that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy > organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible > policy > ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response. I mean, why > does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property > constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place? If it has that, > how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the > NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.? > > The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is > not > of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a > more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public. > > If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public > policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much > more > attention from the general public. In a strange way I suspect that ICANN > doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does > want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self > image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get > that > attention. > > This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either > intentional > or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public > input into policy making that the general public is increasingly > interested > in. > > "Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, > ICANN? > > This confusion of mission and identity is at the core of all of these > problems. And frankly, if this isn't sorted out then whoever designs the > ad campaigns doesn't have the full ability to put together an effective > general-public ad campaign, because superiors would be constraining (and > importantly distorting and thus undermining) the message they would allow > to be included in any ads. > > This a "double-bind" situation, and it is systematically dysfunctional. > It > is quite possible that the failure of the execution of the ad campaign is > simply a reflection of that institutional dysfunction, systematically > obstructing the professionalism of the ad campaign. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 10 04:04:01 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:34:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070910072842.9E8361FCA77@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20070910080404.409E3E1D17@smtp3.electricembers.net> > have to say i missed this call altogether.. is it in the minutes of > the MAG meeting? would be good if it was a little clearer on the website.. Yes it is in the minutes, and not at all clear on the website. I myself missed it, and someone else pointed it out to me when I responded to Lee's email. Lets all separately write to IGF secretariat to be given time till 17th at least. I am writing on behalf of the IGC. 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: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:59 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee > McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; 'Avri Doria' > Subject: Re: [governance] speakers for IGF > > hi > > I guess there'll also be some names coming in from dynamic > coalitions? (thinking in particular ofr the privacy and A2K > coalitions..) - how's communication between the IGC and the other > dynamic coalitions? of course, the more sources of input the better, > but also nice to coordinate > > i'll certainly suggest the privacy coalition put a few names > together.. and i assume robin gross will be on the out and out for > ideas from her networks.. > > have to say i missed this call altogether.. is it in the minutes of > the MAG meeting? would be good if it was a little clearer on the website.. > > karen > > >Each suggested name should be specific to one of the five main thematic > >panels plus one for the emerging issues panel. Please add two to four > lines > >justifying why these names are appropriate for the panels and also why > they > >should be FORWARDED BY OR THROUGH THE IGC as speakers.... > > > >(1) Some involvement with the IGC or other collective CS processes is > >preferable, but not necessary if the suggested person and her > perspectives > >STRONGLY meet the condition 2 and/or 3 below. I put this criterion > because > >we are a platform of collective CS action, and panelists can also be > >suggested directly to the IGF secretariat by any person. > > > >(2) While suggesting names, it is important to keep in mind various > >positions and perspectives that have been adopted and/ or strongly > discussed > >in the IGC. In general, 'progressive' views normally associated with > civil > >society should also be a criterion. > > > >(3) Representing a 'CS view' or 'IGC view' is am important but not the > only > >objective of this process, and if some speakers can be expected to > greatly > >contribute in enriching the debate in the respective thematic area, that > >should itself be a good justification. > > > >(4) Diversity of geography, gender, technical/ developmental/ social > >background, special interest groups etc should be kept in mind. > > > >(5) As per some discussions on this list, it will also be useful to > connect > >workshops to main themes through suggesting panelists from among workshop > >speakers. > > > >(6) anyone recommended should already be planning to be in rio. > > > >(these criterion will be further evolved if a selection process is > adopted. > >Vittorio is still to give his comments, but I thought I should start the > >process because there isnt much time) > > > >I will request the secretariat to extend the deadline to 17th so we have > a > >week, but I cant be sure they will do it. Others who have some leverage > with > >the secretariat may also try to do so. > > > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >www.ITforChange.net > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:09 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; > 'Avri > > > Doria' > > > Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > discussing > > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which > topic > > > > at IGF. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out > with a > > > scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > > > > > 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > > > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM > > > > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > > > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > > > > Everyone, > > > > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > discussing > > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which > topic > > > > at IGF. > > > > > > > > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. > > > > > > > > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, > but > > > > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the clock > is > > > > ticking. > > > > > > > > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators > > > > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? > > > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > > > School of Information Studies > > > > Syracuse University > > > > +1-315-443-6891office > > > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > > > > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> > > > > Hi Avri, > > > > > > > > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > MM > > > > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > > > > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I > think > > > > it > > > > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about > those > > > > > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR > lists. > > > > I > > > > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really > > > > wwant > > > > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > > > > > threads: > > > > > > > > > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > > > > > > > > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), > it's > > > > hardly "serious > > > > policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the > > > > rounds (which I haven't seen). > > > > > > > > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR > communities > > > > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are > > > > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely > match > > > > their requirements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after > > > > all] > > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > > > > > > > > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got > a > > > > > round to it, > > > > > and the debate is still ongoing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the > > > > ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. > I > > > > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general > > > > discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > but it is an interesting thread. > > > > > > > > > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > > > > > > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying > to > > > > > > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > > > > > > > The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not > like > > > > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. > > > > > > > > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is > > > > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would > > > > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, > > > > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on > this > > > > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where > > > > they can actually make a difference. > > > > > > > > Milton. > > > > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than > most > > > > (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading > > > > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many > years, > > > > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines > > > > and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help > distribute > > > > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does > > > > just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, > > > > the IGF is the place to be. > > > > > > > > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. > Of > > > > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available > on > > > > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link > to > > > > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on > arstechnica, > > > > critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it > > > > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you > > > > can make a hyperlink ;-) > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken > > > > out of a statement, not "off the list". > > > > > > > > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy > > > > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in > the > > > > germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes > to > > > > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the > rest > > > > of your first reply. > > > > > > > > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but > it > > > > sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota > > > > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of > my > > > > home state. I don't think it's the same tho. > > > > > > > > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic > in > > > > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a > > > > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay > for > > > > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. > > > > > > > > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I > > > > don't much care. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > McTim > > > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 04:55:01 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:55:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <006d01c7f388$47179c60$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> > The ad that he provided as an example appears to be > incoherent when one evaluates... Dan, Since you have been so generous with your advice, would you accept some? If you wish to have your views properly considered, then reaching for the strongest negative word each time while also making it clear your mind is made up, is the least effective way of doing it. We are not negotiating a treaty here. ICANN is in a complex, challenging and changing world and its systems have evolved to favour those that are willing to work with others to reach a consensus view. If you relax the rhetoric and talk to people you will find a significant number of them are working hard at fixing the issues you have identified. I will do a post on the ICANN blog this week in an effort to stir up some reasoned debate over there as this mailing list has a lot of stuff to get through in the next few months to prepare for the IGF, and the issue of ICANN, as always, tends to make discussion and agreement on other topics harder. What I would personally like to see discussed is how exactly civil society can make access a major feature of the Rio IGF. If it wasn't for Nitin Desai's nimble chairmanship, access and capacity building would probably never make it on the agenda at all. And yet this is arguably the most important issue with the Internet as it is in 2007. My argument would be that if high-quality, well-written, concise and interesting documentation covering the access issue was produced (in a range of languages) and if a number of lively and carefully produced workshops and presentations were put together, then people would gravitate toward the issue. I also think time invested in high-quality recording of workshops, which are then quickly posted online (YouTube, Google video and Dotsub) would pay back ten-fold. Off the top of my head: a table of countries and the per-person cost of Internet connections in that country, both by actual dollar value and comparative dollar value, would cause people to do what people always do - find out where their country comes, plus compare it to the top countries, the bottom countries and their neighbours. Then all you have to do is flag up what the patterns are in low-price and high-price countries (most obvious ones being deregulation/monopoly; geographic location/landlocked), and you have people thinking about the issue straight away. Plus, such a table is a pre-formed story and would be lapped up by every journalist from every country (so long as their country is on the list). An interactive map of the table is also easily produced if the data is put into XML. This is what we use to produce the ICANN maps. One example here: http://www.icann.org/maps/root-servers.htm Just one idea. I have to say I am also amazed that there are not sessions where governments share knowledge of the different laws they have brought in re: Internet issues and their effectiveness - or have I just missed them? 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 10 05:27:50 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:27:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: >At 3:48 PM -0400 9/7/07, veni markovski wrote: >>At 12:31 9/7/2007 -0700, you wrote: >>>The ads must be well-designed and properly placed to be effective. My call >>>is for effective ads, not just any old ads. >> >>Then Adam Peake should respond to this ;) > >I'll be interested if he does. > >The ad that he provided as an example appears to be incoherent when one >evaluates the combination of audience targeting, strategic messaging and >media placement (these considerations are completely interdependent and >cannot be separated from one another -- they must be evaluated as a >package). Dan, Where would you suggest the Nominating Committee placed the ad for positions, how would you have written it differently? Note, the purpose was to encourage people to apply for positions the NomCom had to fill, not conduct outreach for ICANN, not to increase awareness. FWIW the ad wasn't a great success, but was a worthwhile experiment. There's a bit of background explain this in the committee's report page 20. >Anyone who has ever worked at an authoritative level in the advertising or >marketing profession (like, say, at an ad agency in a creative/strategic >role, or perhaps in the publishing/ad-sales/marketing department of a print >periodical [not the editorial department], or perhaps even in a media >placement service) would recognize this example as systematically >unprofessional (as long as they were brought up to speed on the full >details of ICANN's activities and the specific goal of such an ad). > Basic content of the ad was agreed by the NomCom and finalized with the help of staff from a media agency ICANN uses. The agency also advised on placement (Economist considered best, a well read international mag, used by many large international organizations for similar types of advert). Thoughts on improvements very welcome. > >>>Bottom line: This example does not prove that there is no audience for >>>ICANN's work, only that the ad was flawed. >> >>You see, the problem is that you can't forever deny the fact that >>generally people are not interested in ICANN. This time you don't >>like the ads, next time you wouldn't like the newspapers they would >>be published at, etc., etc. While the simple fact, which Kieren > >mentioned will continue to be a fact. I think many people are interested in ICANN, that's why the press cover it. The one attempt at global elections brought a reasonably large response (considering it was not a particularly easy process, and if you take away anomalies such as the turnout in the Asia Pacific.) But it is certainly true that few people want to volunteer to do work. But if you look at most standards making processes (ITU, IETF, ATIS) they face the same problems, when it comes down to people doing sustained work (i.e. drafting) the numbers are very few and often the same people. Adam >This "simple fact" appears never to have been properly tested in the first >place, at least according to the evidence of the ad presented here. If the >whole ad process is executed properly and professionally, then I won't >object if the response continues to be weak. But as long as the ad process >continues to be similarly unprofessional, you really can't tell anything >about the audience response. It's as if you spoke to someone >unintelligibly, and interpreted a non-response as stupidity or lack of >interest instead of your failure to communicate. > >I will only complain when the process is flawed. This example was clearly >flawed, and any competent advertising professionals can confirm it for you, >if they know enough about ICANN and the policy domain it genuinely >addresses (as opposed to the policy domain it clams to address officially). > > >The point I'm trying to make here is that if people knew that ICANN was >making policy that will affect things they care about deeply like freedom >of expression and personal privacy, etc., there would be a much higher >likelihood of expanding interest in ICANN's work to more of the general >public. > >If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" organization >that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy >organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible policy >ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response. I mean, why >does a "technical" organization even have an "intellectual property >constituency" (in addition to the BC) in the first place? If it has that, >how about adding a "personal privacy constituency" (in addition to the >NCUC) or a "free expression constituency" etc., etc.? > >The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is not >of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a >more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public. > >If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public >policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much more >attention from the general public. In a strange way I suspect that ICANN >doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does >want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self >image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get that >attention. > >This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either intentional >or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public >input into policy making that the general public is increasingly interested >in. > >"Is you is, or is you ain't" a *general public policy* organization, ICANN? > >This confusion of mission and identity is at the core of all of these >problems. And frankly, if this isn't sorted out then whoever designs the >ad campaigns doesn't have the full ability to put together an effective >general-public ad campaign, because superiors would be constraining (and >importantly distorting and thus undermining) the message they would allow >to be included in any ads. > >This a "double-bind" situation, and it is systematically dysfunctional. It >is quite possible that the failure of the execution of the ad campaign is >simply a reflection of that institutional dysfunction, systematically >obstructing the professionalism of the ad campaign. > >Dan >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 06:14:42 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:14:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, May I repeat the suggestion that speakers participating in workshops be considered in a first round : we are sure they will be there and they will be harder to oppose. Workshop organizers in each track could be invited to suggest names, to alleviate the burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as provide some transparency in the process. Best Bertrand On 9/10/07, Parminder wrote: > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > at IGF. > > > > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a > scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wsis at ngocongo.org Mon Sep 10 07:34:28 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:34:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: Suggested Guidelines forNominationsCommittee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee In-Reply-To: <20070909154023.7EB081D93C3@mail.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <200709101133.l8ABXoLm028876@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Thank you Parminder and others for raising this issue. Further to my previous e-mail on the renewal of the Steering Committee membership, all CS members of GAID Strategy Council and Panel of Advisors were contacted and very little feedback was received. We have therefore been unsuccessful in leading a CS self nomination process fir the Steering Committee membership. There is a large agreement on this list that the Strategy Council membership renewal should give way to a wider CS self nomination process. The NomCom methodology used the last time in May 2006 can be used as a basis again here (fyi, the May 2006 process was described at http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag &id=10220). Let me remind the deadlines for the Strategy Council renewal: GAID Strategy Council Deadline for outgoing members to express their interest in a renewal of their terms 1 October 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 30 November 2007 Date of the GAID structure with its renewed membership May 2008 Kuala Lumpur We therefore have two and a half months ahead of us. To secure transparency and inclusiveness, the process of identifying a Nominations Committee and a call for candidates to the Strategy Council should be ready to start as of 1st October (at that time we would have more information on which out-going members are willing to stay and which CS seats will have to be renewed). Best, Philippe _____ De : plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] De la part de Parminder Envoyé : dimanche, 9. septembre 2007 16:40 À : 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: Suggested Guidelines forNominationsCommittee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee Philippe Will you want to declare what happened with the GAID steering committee nomination process (we did discuss it in Geneva recently, but it is good to declare it here as well), and what do we intend to do with nominations for the strategy council I am only taking suggestions form everyone here, and not necessarily implying CONGO must take this role up. I am afraid CS will completely lose out in the new post-WSIS multistakeholder processes. And the absence of any self-organizing process of CS will be used by the powers-that-be to make it into a system of ‘nominating’ CS ‘reps’ from the top, which serves to create the illusion of CS representation without it really being so. And then in the name of CS involvement and multistakeholderism dominant ideological and policy positions can get promoted, which leaves us worse off them without any multistakeholder structures at all. I wonder if there are actors here who have any interest in this issue. Is so, we may need to act now. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:20 PM To: 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] TR: Suggested Guidelines for NominationsCommittee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee Importance: High Dear all, For your information and based on your feedback, I proposed this process to the 25 CS members of GAID structures. It includes most of the comments made so far, while keeping them somewhat flexible. We will try to make this process as simple and as little time-consuming as possible, given the timelines. It is of course understood that a nomination process for GAID Strategy Council membership should be wider and more inclusive. Thanks for your understanding. Best, Ph _____ De : CONGO - Philippe Dam [mailto:philippe.dam at ngocongo.org] Envoyi : mercredi, 22. ao{t 2007 18:45 @ : 'CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam'; 'GAID-CS' Cc : 'kayadi at planet.tn'; 'rodrigob at cdi.org.br'; 'bruck at research.at'; 'Astrid.Dufborg at gesci.org'; 'hiroshikawamura at attglobal.net'; 'jlongmore at dotrust.org'; 'tracey at traceynaughton.com'; 'bnnrc at siriusbb.com'; 'st.amour at isoc.org'; 'wanyeki at iconnect.co.ke'; 'rinalia at gkpsecretariat.org.my'; 'alain.berranger at gmail.com'; 'iza at anr.org'; 'qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw'; 'rbissio at chasque.apc.org'; 'dcogburn at syr.edu'; 'pape.diouf at iued.unige.ch'; 'drake at hei.unige.ch'; 'ershova at iis.ru'; 'anriette at apc.org'; 'gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU'; 'akigua at telia.com'; 'wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de'; 'jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu'; 'george.sadowsky at attglobal.net'; 'Henning.Wegener at t-online.de'; 'titi at mindset.co.za'; 'Renate Bloem' Objet : Suggested Guidelines for Nominations Committee - Renewal of GAID Steering Committee Importance : Haute Dear all, As you know the GAID Secretariat recently circulated a note on the partial renewal of the membership of the GAID governing structures. In particular, it was announced that one of the two seats reserved to civil society representatives in the GAID Steering Committee should be renewed before the next Steering Meeting taking place in New York on 19 September 2007. The GAID Secretariat invited civil society to identify nominations from among their constituencies, through a self-nomination process. Timelines for the renewal of Steering Committee membership are as follows: GAID Steering Committee Deadline for outgoing members to express their interest in a renewal of their terms 15 August 2007 Deadline for new nominations for membership 1 September 2007 Date of the membership renewal 19 September 2007 New York Based on the experiences of the CS Nomination Committee for the IGF Advisory Group and GAID governing structures in the first half of 2006, we proposed that we use of similar model for this process. However, due to the very short time available and to the fact that only one seat is going to be renewed, and in order to increase the representative ownership of the nomination to be done, we also proposed that a Nominations Committee to submit a recommendation for the member of the Steering Committee should be identified among the outgoing civil society members of the GAID Strategy Council and High Level Panel of Advisors. Those two proposals received several supports among CS constituencies. Selection of the CS Nominations Committee Members of the Nominations Committee will preferably have to demonstrate a long-standing engagement in the Information Society-related processes within the UN, in particular WSIS, as well as a good experience of civil society self-organised working processes. Out of the 25 civil society members of the Strategy Council and of the High Level Panel of Advisors (see list attached), at least 5 individuals should volunteer to serve within the Nominations Committee. The final number of members of the Nominations Committee could be flexible (preferably between 5 and 10 persons). They would act in their personal capacities. Volunteers should announce their wish to participate in the Nominations Committee no later than Friday 24 August 2007 at 12:00 am GMT. The NomCom’s final recommendations would have to be forwarded to the GAID Executive Director no later than 1 September 2007. The work of the Nominations Committee would be facilitated by a non-voting facilitator (I propose my service to serve in that capacity and to use the CONGO website for more transparency and updates if needed). Thanks for your attention. We will try to make it as simple as possible for volunteers serving in the nominations committee. I’ll circulate some more information on proposed timelines for identification of candidates and proposed guidelines for selection tomorrow. Looking forward to your reactions. All the best, Philippe -------------- 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 Mon Sep 10 07:54:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:54:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with this suggestion. It's a waste of time to suggest people not knowing if they will be in Rio or not. Also, the overall theme is development, people from developing nations a big plus. Last year there was something of an unwritten rule that advisory group members wouldn't join panels (only one did I think), and I think best if the caucus coordinators also didn't participate as panelists, that's also been a bit of a tradition. Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with Markus about how he expects speakers to be selected once the names are in? And could you also ask him about the opening ceremony -- it's currently shown as a 2.5 hour session, how many CS speakers will be required, and specific topics? I have asked him, but better coming from the caucus. Best, Adam At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear all, > >May I repeat the suggestion that speakers >participating in workshops be considered in a >first round : we are sure they will be there and >they will be harder to oppose. > >Workshop organizers in each track could be >invited to suggest names, to alleviate the >burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as >provide some transparency in the process. > >Best > >Bertrand > >On 9/10/07, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net> >wrote: > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing >> whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic >> at IGF. >> > >Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a >scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > >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 > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Sep 10 08:22:37 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:22:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: References: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <46E5370D.2030404@rits.org.br> It is a good suggestion, not only because there is a good chance they will be in Rio, but also because they are involved in the pertinent debates (otherwise they would not be proposing or joining workshops) -- the same is valid fot the DCs, but I think many wkps people map into the DCs people. Unfortunately, the descriptions we have of the workshops do not include actual names of people in a clear manner in most cases, so we will have to do some "data mining" here. --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > I agree with this suggestion. It's a waste of time to suggest people > not knowing if they will be in Rio or not. > > Also, the overall theme is development, people from developing nations a > big plus. > > Last year there was something of an unwritten rule that advisory group > members wouldn't join panels (only one did I think), and I think best if > the caucus coordinators also didn't participate as panelists, that's > also been a bit of a tradition. > > Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with Markus about how he expects > speakers to be selected once the names are in? And could you also ask > him about the opening ceremony -- it's currently shown as a 2.5 hour > session, how many CS speakers will be required, and specific topics? I > have asked him, but better coming from the caucus. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> May I repeat the suggestion that speakers participating in workshops >> be considered in a first round : we are sure they will be there and >> they will be harder to oppose. >> >> Workshop organizers in each track could be invited to suggest names, >> to alleviate the burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as provide >> some transparency in the process. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> On 9/10/07, Parminder >> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >> >> > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, >> discussing >>> whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic >>> at IGF. >>> >> >> Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a >> scheme for this within the next 24 hours. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Sep 10 08:30:10 2007 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:30:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <46E5370D.2030404@rits.org.br> References: <20070910043924.E7705A6C49@smtp2.electricembers.net> <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> <46E5370D.2030404@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070910123011.2925320E5BD@mail.gn.apc.org> hi i agree with this thread, and anriette made jsut such a suggestion during the consultation (posted to this list) we have until sep 22nd to firm up speakers - but i'm sure we can pool the speakers we have now, and add as they come in.. can we start a new thread on this parminder/vittorio? new subject line? karen At 13:22 10/09/2007, Carlos Afonso wrote: >It is a good suggestion, not only because there >is a good chance they will be in Rio, but also >because they are involved in the pertinent >debates (otherwise they would not be proposing >or joining workshops) -- the same is valid fot >the DCs, but I think many wkps people map into >the DCs people. Unfortunately, the descriptions >we have of the workshops do not include actual >names of people in a clear manner in most cases, >so we will have to do some "data mining" here. > >--c.a. > >Adam Peake wrote: >>I agree with this suggestion. It's a waste of >>time to suggest people not knowing if they will be in Rio or not. >>Also, the overall theme is development, people >>from developing nations a big plus. >>Last year there was something of an unwritten >>rule that advisory group members wouldn't join >>panels (only one did I think), and I think best >>if the caucus coordinators also didn't >>participate as panelists, that's also been a bit of a tradition. >>Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with >>Markus about how he expects speakers to be >>selected once the names are in? And could you >>also ask him about the opening ceremony -- it's >>currently shown as a 2.5 hour session, how many >>CS speakers will be required, and specific >>topics? I have asked him, but better coming from the caucus. >>Best, >>Adam >> >>At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>Dear all, >>> >>>May I repeat the suggestion that speakers >>>participating in workshops be considered in a >>>first round : we are sure they will be there and they will be harder to oppose. >>> >>>Workshop organizers in each track could be >>>invited to suggest names, to alleviate the >>>burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as >>>provide some transparency in the process. >>> >>>Best >>> >>>Bertrand >>> >>>On 9/10/07, Parminder >>><parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>> >>> > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing >>>> whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic >>>> at IGF. >>> >>>Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a >>>scheme for this within the next 24 hours. >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>____________________ >>>Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> >>>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >>>les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>>("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >-- > >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 08:37:35 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:37:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 11:43 AM -0400 9/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >There are people (governmental and business >interests and some in the technical community) >who want to prevent discussion of cIr, I don't think that's correct, or if it is then it's a very few people (perhaps one person voice such an opinion in the recent meetings, the rest seem to see it as a legitimate subject.) >or, failing that, neuter it, divert it or stack the deck. This might be correct, and perhaps has been achieved by deciding discussion of CIR would follow the format of the the WGIG report paragraph 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." But support for using this interpretation was pretty much unanimous (best I remember no one in the AG spoke against it.) I think China proposed using 13 a in the open consultation last Monday. Odd world... Adam >Some of those people are represented on the MAG. >But IGF itself, if by IGF you mean simply the >Secretariat and the MAG as a whole, has already >recognized the need to discuss it. As with any >such institution, it will respond to a number of >voices and try to find a middle path agreeable >to most. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> >> Sorry, this was my impressio. If not even better. Than we have full >> consensus >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> >> >Milton is right and wrong. >> >> >He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. >> >> When and where did I say this? >> > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 >- Release Date: 9/8/2007 1:24 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 ca at rits.org.br Mon Sep 10 10:01:20 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:01:20 -0300 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46E54E30.7040309@rits.org.br> Anyway, I guess this is settled, and the challenge is now to have a good, diverse CIR panel in IGF Rio (please, no more Internet 101-like things, dummy's guides on how idiots we are in not believing the current system is perfect etc etc). --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > At 11:43 AM -0400 9/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> There are people (governmental and business interests and some in the >> technical community) who want to prevent discussion of cIr, > > > I don't think that's correct, or if it is then it's a very few people > (perhaps one person voice such an opinion in the recent meetings, the > rest seem to see it as a legitimate subject.) > > >> or, failing that, neuter it, divert it or stack the deck. > > > This might be correct, and perhaps has been achieved by deciding > discussion of CIR would follow the format of the the WGIG report > paragraph 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." > > But support for using this interpretation was pretty much unanimous > (best I remember no one in the AG spoke against it.) I think China > proposed using 13 a in the open consultation last Monday. Odd world... > > Adam > > > > >> Some of those people are represented on the MAG. But IGF itself, if by >> IGF you mean simply the Secretariat and the MAG as a whole, has >> already recognized the need to discuss it. As with any such >> institution, it will respond to a number of voices and try to find a >> middle path agreeable to most. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >>> >>> Sorry, this was my impressio. If not even better. Than we have full >>> consensus >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >>> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>> >>> >Milton is right and wrong. >>> >>> >He is wrong whhn he says the IGF plans to block the debate. >>> >>> When and where did I say this? >>> >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: >> 9/8/2007 1:24 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 > > > -- 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 Mon Sep 10 10:05:50 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:05:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CC8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> At 11:43 AM -0400 9/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>There are people (governmental and business >>interests and some in the technical community) >>who want to prevent discussion of cIr, > >I don't think that's correct, or if it is then >it's a very few people (perhaps one person voice >such an opinion in the recent meetings, the rest >seem to see it as a legitimate subject.) That's good news. >>or, failing that, neuter it, divert it or stack the deck. > >This might be correct, and perhaps has been >achieved by deciding discussion of CIR would >follow the format of the the WGIG report >paragraph 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." Adam, I guess I don't see how this paragraph "neuters, diverts or stacks the deck." Can you explain? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 10:53:15 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:23:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709100314s78ef5902q50b6195366b02111@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070910145317.0477667831@smtp1.electricembers.net> Bertrand >May I repeat the suggestion that speakers participating in workshops be considered in a first round : we are sure they will be there and they will be harder to >oppose. >Workshop organizers in each track could be invited to suggest names, to alleviate the burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as provide some transparency in >the process. I agree that this criterion should be used as well, along with others. But not exclusively. And therefore I won’t go for a ‘first round’ of just such speakers. I did list this criterion also when I suggested a couple of criteria for nominating speakers. While the logic of connecting the workshops to the main session through speakers is sound, we should not ignore the fact that there is a complete lack of diversity in workshops themselves – a very overwhelming number are organized by North based actors, and by certain stakeholder groups. Main sessions may also be used to correct this imbalance rather than just reproducing it . As long as that is kept in mind, it is good to have enough number of speakers for the main session from the workshops. Best 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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:45 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Cc: Lee McKnight; dogwallah at gmail.com; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] tick, tick, tick... Dear all, May I repeat the suggestion that speakers participating in workshops be considered in a first round : we are sure they will be there and they will be harder to oppose. Workshop organizers in each track could be invited to suggest names, to alleviate the burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as provide some transparency in the process. Best Bertrand On 9/10/07, Parminder wrote: > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, discussing > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > at IGF. > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a scheme for this within the next 24 hours. 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 10 12:19:04 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:49:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070910161905.137E1679AB@smtp1.electricembers.net> Adam >and I think best > if the caucus coordinators also didn't > participate as panelists, that's also been a bit > of a tradition. I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? And to keep me informed, please also let me know of all others traditions associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of officially empowered committees and working groups where they speak for themselves, and of holding positions in important IG institutions which themselves are often important subjects of discussion etc etc :-) Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident justification, and applies in every nomcom. I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models for access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access theme which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal without assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically motivated, compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these issues. I want to make sure that the access panel just doesn’t one-sidedly parrot the neo-liberal line of telecom, as it is obviously the intention of some powerful parties. Removal of these issues is even more unjustifiable because they are from the language adopted by WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. Obviously, what are useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by some people on their own. I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ owned access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still not sure if they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). I am trying my best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in the access panel... If that doesn’t happen, I am fine to make a general appeal to anyone who will be at IGF and be willing to speak on this issue. If not, I would step up and offer myself as a speaker for the access panel. Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a CS member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used to remove such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed from the 'access' agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your personal opinion on this? Or is access important only as promotion of telecom market models of MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as an item for discussion? Or is such 'hair-splitting' in the area of 'access' just not important, and access topic is good only to be used as a counterfoil to CIR issue? Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I think it will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG members replying to questions on IGC list that relate directly to their MAG work. Best Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > I agree with this suggestion. It's a waste of > time to suggest people not knowing if they will > be in Rio or not. > > Also, the overall theme is development, people > from developing nations a big plus. > > Last year there was something of an unwritten > rule that advisory group members wouldn't join > panels (only one did I think), and I think best > if the caucus coordinators also didn't > participate as panelists, that's also been a bit > of a tradition. > > Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with > Markus about how he expects speakers to be > selected once the names are in? And could you > also ask him about the opening ceremony -- it's > currently shown as a 2.5 hour session, how many > CS speakers will be required, and specific > topics? I have asked him, but better coming from > the caucus. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >May I repeat the suggestion that speakers > >participating in workshops be considered in a > >first round : we are sure they will be there and > >they will be harder to oppose. > > > >Workshop organizers in each track could be > >invited to suggest names, to alleviate the > >burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as > >provide some transparency in the process. > > > >Best > > > >Bertrand > > > >On 9/10/07, Parminder > ><parminder at itforchange.net> > >wrote: > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > discussing > >> whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > >> at IGF. > >> > > > >Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out with a > >scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > > >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 > > > > > > > >-- > >____________________ > >Bertrand de La Chapelle > > > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir > >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 12:28:12 2007 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:28:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: '08 exact dates - the dates for Athens were announced very close to the meeting; that exact dates for Rio were announced in Athens, which made it possible for me to plan (and to cash in some miles for awards). Can a request be made that the exact '08 dates and city be announced by the end of the Rio meeting? 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 10 12:33:21 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:33:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CC8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CC8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 10:05 AM -0400 9/10/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > snip > > >>"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." > >Adam, I guess I don't see how this paragraph "neuters, diverts or stacks >the deck." Can you explain? I think including "technical standards, peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, including innovative and convergent technologies" is a diversion from the real issue we should be discussing. In email to the AG some months ago (and might also have copied to the governance list, can't remember) I suggested the WGIG background report was a better source, it goes into more detail: 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 I'd have picked the second bullet only and left the first for access and perhaps openness (standards). But it seemed pointless to argue last week. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 10 13:07:04 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:07:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <20070910161905.137E1679AB@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070910161905.137E1679AB@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Parminder, quick reply more later perhaps. Jetlag. About the tradition -- all I can say is Jeanette and I didn't speak at sessions, tried to steer opportunities to others. When it comes to consultations it often seems IT for Change has comments in before the caucus. So perhaps it's a matter of priorities? About the access issues you're concerned about. Odd you think they came from IT for Change. See part of an email I sent to the MAG list in June, I thought I wrote the now deleted items. I am also unhappy they are gone, and I may well have screwed up last week, plus I had to leave early and didn't see the final draft of the access session. But the items are a guide not rule. I expect each session will later have a written description and I will try to get those issue back in. It's not helpful you always so aggressively negative about people's motives. Adam email comments on an earlier draft of the program: >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:58:54 +0900 >From: Adam Peake >Subject: [igf_members] thoughts on Access session and sub-themes > >About the access session and sub themes. > >It would be a good opportunity to include some national case studies, >national-level multi-stakeholder initiatives influencing the policy >process (I mentioned some examples in earlier email. This was a key >part of APC's contribution to the last consultation and I thought >very useful and relevant.) Case studies would introduce some "real" >issues and problems for the panel/audience to keep in mind. Might >also be an opportunity to have one or more of the Best Practise >sessions focus on access related activities. > > From the bullets in the Draft Program under access, suggest, in priority: > >1. Regulatory frameworks tailored to local conditions [, in >particular towards improving access in rural areas.] and the effect >of regional infrastructure and regulation on Internet connectivity >costs and access to the Internet. > >(this combines two bullets) > >2. Market and non-market structures and their relationship to >competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative >business models. > >(organize the session around problems/issues identified by specific >stakeholder groups.) > >3. Public infrastructure and the respective roles and >responsibilities of public and private finance in providing access. > >(re-words what's in the bullet in the draft.) > >4. International connectivity costs > >This is an important topic, but is IGF the best place to discuss it. >It might be better as the subject of an "open" workshop. > >5. The role of governments as key stakeholders in ensuring an >enabling environment to improve access. > >(this is true, but will be be able to openly talk about the barriers >govt often create to an enabling environment?) > >So I suggest we make 1, 2, 3 the sub-theme workshops. List the rest >an more as just other examples of issues thought important? > >Best, > >Adam > At 9:49 PM +0530 9/10/07, Parminder wrote: >Adam > >>and I think best >> if the caucus coordinators also didn't >> participate as panelists, that's also been a bit >> of a tradition. > >I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? And to >keep me informed, please also let me know of all others traditions >associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of officially >empowered committees and working groups where they speak for themselves, and >of holding positions in important IG institutions which themselves are often >important subjects of discussion etc etc :-) > >Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are >supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident justification, >and applies in every nomcom. > >I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my >organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models for >access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access theme >which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal without >assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically motivated, >compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these issues. I want to make >sure that the access panel just doesn’t one-sidedly parrot the neo-liberal >line of telecom, as it is obviously the intention of some powerful parties. >Removal of these issues is even more unjustifiable because they are from the >language adopted by WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. Obviously, >what are useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by some >people on their own. > >I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ owned >access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still not sure if >they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). I am trying my >best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in the access panel... If >that doesn’t happen, I am fine to make a general appeal to anyone who will >be at IGF and be willing to speak on this issue. If not, I would step up and >offer myself as a speaker for the access panel. > >Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a CS >member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used to remove >such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed from the 'access' >agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your personal opinion on >this? Or is access important only as promotion of telecom market models of >MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as an item for discussion? Or is >such 'hair-splitting' in the area of 'access' just not important, and access >topic is good only to be used as a counterfoil to CIR issue? > >Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I think it >will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG members replying >to questions on IGC list that relate directly to their MAG work. > >Best > >Parminder > > > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From anriette at apc.org Mon Sep 10 13:26:28 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:26:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: <20070910161905.137E1679AB@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: , <20070910161905.137E1679AB@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46E59A64.28907.62FE933@anriette.apc.org> Hallo everyone Parminder's message raises two main points: - putting caucus coordinators forward as speakers - the changes to the access theme text on the agenda I want to respond to the latter. I agree strongly with Parminder that diverse approaches to business models that address the access gap are important. In fact, APC's input to the access theme some time ago stressed this and I also remember you making this input to the list Adam. Personally I would not use the term 'alternative' business models, but rather refer to diverse models. And the respective roles of public versus private financing, and various combinations of both, is really important and often neglegted. And, looking at community, and user driven models of ownership and control is absolutely essential if we want to get beyond the perpetual polarity between state or business centred models. We definitely need a speaker that can address this issue creatively. Anriette > > Adam > > >and I think best > > if the caucus coordinators also didn't > > participate as panelists, that's also been a bit > > of a tradition. > > I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? > And to keep me informed, please also let me know of all others > traditions associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of > officially empowered committees and working groups where they speak > for themselves, and of holding positions in important IG institutions > which themselves are often important subjects of discussion etc etc > :-) > > Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are > supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident > justification, and applies in every nomcom. > > I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my > organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models > for access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access > theme which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal > without assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically > motivated, compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these > issues. I want to make sure that the access panel just doesn´t > one-sidedly parrot the neo-liberal line of telecom, as it is obviously > the intention of some powerful parties. Removal of these issues is > even more unjustifiable because they are from the language adopted by > WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. Obviously, what are > useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by some > people on their own. > > I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ > owned access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still > not sure if they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). > I am trying my best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in > the access panel... If that doesn´t happen, I am fine to make a > general appeal to anyone who will be at IGF and be willing to speak on > this issue. If not, I would step up and offer myself as a speaker for > the access panel. > > Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a > CS member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used > to remove such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed > from the 'access' agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your > personal opinion on this? Or is access important only as promotion of > telecom market models of MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as > an item for discussion? Or is such 'hair-splitting' in the area of > 'access' just not important, and access topic is good only to be used > as a counterfoil to CIR issue? > > Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I > think it will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG > members replying to questions on IGC list that relate directly to > their MAG work. > > Best > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:24 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > I agree with this suggestion. It's a waste of > > time to suggest people not knowing if they will > > be in Rio or not. > > > > Also, the overall theme is development, people > > from developing nations a big plus. > > > > Last year there was something of an unwritten > > rule that advisory group members wouldn't join > > panels (only one did I think), and I think best > > if the caucus coordinators also didn't > > participate as panelists, that's also been a bit > > of a tradition. > > > > Parminder, have you and Vittorio spoken with > > Markus about how he expects speakers to be > > selected once the names are in? And could you > > also ask him about the opening ceremony -- it's > > currently shown as a 2.5 hour session, how many > > CS speakers will be required, and specific > > topics? I have asked him, but better coming from > > the caucus. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > At 12:14 PM +0200 9/10/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >Dear all, > > > > > >May I repeat the suggestion that speakers > > >participating in workshops be considered in a > > >first round : we are sure they will be there and > > >they will be harder to oppose. > > > > > >Workshop organizers in each track could be > > >invited to suggest names, to alleviate the > > >burden of Parminder and Vittorio, as well as > > >provide some transparency in the process. > > > > > >Best > > > > > >Bertrand > > > > > >On 9/10/07, Parminder > > ><parminder at itforchange.net> > > >wrote: > > > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > > discussing > > >> whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which > > >> topic at IGF. > > >> > > > > > >Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out > > >with a scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >____________________ > > >Bertrand de La Chapelle > > > > > >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > > > > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir > > >les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > > >("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.12/997 - Release Date: > 9/9/2007 10:17 AM > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 plzak at arin.net Mon Sep 10 14:18:01 2007 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:18:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4C2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4410FC2E-33A0-4672-B7F7-9D7FB12E632C@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4C2@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: > > ** If you'd take a look at the IGP blog's "Headlines in Internet > Governance" you'll find no less than 3 of the latest 10 are about ARIN > and IP addressing. http://blog.internetgovernance.org/ And would notice that your name is noticeably absent from the discussions that have been taking place in the ARIN policy forum. Why don't you participate? The community would welcome your participation. Ray ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 16:55:52 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:55:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: <20070910075241.E341B678ED@smtp1.electricembers.net> References: <20070910075241.E341B678ED@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: At 1:22 PM +0530 9/10/07, Parminder wrote: > >> If ICANN continues to present itself as the "merely technical" >> organization >> that it *should* be (as opposed to the more general public policy >> organization that it increasingly *is*, as reflected in its tangible >> policy >> ambitions) I predict you would get a much different response. ........ >>(snip) >> >> The core problem is that the official line ("we are only technical") is >> not >> of interest to the general public, but the reality (*we make policy of a >> more general nature*) is of much greater interest to the general public. >> >> If ICANN were honest in explicitly describing the full range of public >> policy that is deliberated under its roof, I predict it would get much >> more >> attention from the general public. In a strange way I suspect that ICANN >> doesn't really want that attention, but if I am wrong and indeed it does >> want that attention it has not been able to get past its erroneous self >> image to present itself properly to the general public in order to get >> that >> attention. >> >> This is basically a matter of institutional self-denial, either >> intentional >> or accidental, that must be clarified in order to attract proper public >> input into policy making that the general public is increasingly >> interested >> in. > >Thanks Dan for an excellent exposition of what you rightly describe as the >'core problem'. I will like to recommend you for the CIRs main session to >just put forward this simple and clear formulation of the main issue or >problem around CIR governance. Unfortunately I will not be present at IGF, as I do not have the resources to attend out of pocket and I have no other resources to support such a trip. Also, while I currently do not have a paid position, I am actively looking and may be lucky enough to land something soon, which may not allow me to attend in an official capacity (not everything I'm looking at is directly related to Internet governance). I'm not even certain that I can allocate the time to get to Los Angeles for ICANN, though I could drive there in a day. If I'm still out of work I suppose I'll be able to make it, but if employed there's no guarantee. I am on this list mainly because I am deeply interested in the issues generally and because I specifically did some pro bono work for NCUC while looking for paid work, but I am not a formal participant in IGC at this time. (I became aware of the list when I worked for CPSR for a few months last fall/winter, but I no longer work there.) Please feel free to use any ideas of mine in any way that seems useful, I'm not enforcing any copyright privileges on this list. Consider my comments here dedicated to the public domain. :-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Mon Sep 10 17:54:53 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:54:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: <006d01c7f388$47179c60$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> <006d01c7f388$47179c60$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: At 9:55 AM +0100 9/10/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> The ad that he provided as an example appears to be >> incoherent when one evaluates... > > >Dan, > >Since you have been so generous with your advice, would you accept some? > >If you wish to have your views properly considered, then reaching for the >strongest negative word each time while also making it clear your mind is >made up, is the least effective way of doing it. > >We are not negotiating a treaty here. ICANN is in a complex, challenging and >changing world and its systems have evolved to favour those that are willing >to work with others to reach a consensus view. > >If you relax the rhetoric and talk to people you will find a significant >number of them are working hard at fixing the issues you have identified. Fair enough, Kieren. My experience in the "consensus" process in the recent Whois WG probably primed me for extreme frustration, as meaningful consensus was ultimately systematically thwarted in that venue in my first-hand experience. And a big part of the problem there was that there were many at the table for whom consensus would be a uniformly losing proposition (at least so they thought), and because they (thought they) had nothing to gain they did not participate in good faith. In my experience, the ICANN process in this instance systematically favored those who did *not* wish to reach consensus. So rhetoric that suggests that ICANN's (policy making) systems in fact favor those who are willing to work for consensus seems to me either unforgivably naive, deliberately misleading, or abjectly clueless. Sorry to ruffle your feathers once more, but your statement above just seems like rhetorical spin-doctoring in the context of the pungent experience I had this spring and summer. If you really believe it, then I think you need to find yourself some way of getting information about ICANN's activities through some alternative channels that can complement whatever official channels you are using right now to find out what is going on in ICANN's policy processes. For sure, no one has time to directly monitor all of the PDPs et cetera first-hand, so I don't expect you to do it all yourself. Thus you must rely on others. Whom you choose to rely on will make a difference in the quality of your information. To be blunt, when it comes to sticky matters of contentious general public policy, ICANN seems to have been entirely unsuccessful in discovering real consensus, partly because the issues themselves do not allow it regardless of what ICANN tries to do. Some circles cannot be "squared", and as long as ICANN keeps trying to do the impossible, it will and must fail. What initially set me off, though, was the claim that "ICANN is indeed open" when in fact the best one can possibly say is that "some people at ICANN indeed endeavor for it to be open" (sorry to ruffle your feathers *yet again*, but either you are seeing it through rose glasses or you have relatively low standards of genuinely effective openness). The way you worded it seemed to imply that the intent was enough to suffice, even when there remain serious systematic obstacles to effective implementation of open participation policies at ICANN. Again, it struck me as spin, not a meaningful evaluation of the full reality. I don't know who exactly at ICANN is establishing the ideology and official rhetoric about ICANN's mission. I would have to assume that Paul Twomey is a big part of it, and that the Board has a good deal to do with it as well, because those are putatively the people who *should* have this responsibility, given the non-profit corporate organizational structure. And of course, the JPA and NTIA must impose a huge constraining influence as well. In any case, I see a substantial disconnect between rhetoric and reality here, and that is at the core of the most important ICANN disputes, as I noted previously. I honestly don't know all of the ins and outs of ICANN's institutional hierarchy, both among paid staff and among the pro bono policy-making participants. Perhaps there is no one who really does. But it is clear to me that there is serious chronic dysfunction in this institution, and it may reflect significant external forces that cannot entirely be controlled from within. But whatever the problems are, it appears that they are deep and structural, so tactical fixes are not likely to solve the profound conflicts that lie at the heart of the institution. The problems likely originate in the bylaws and the process that creates the bylaws, and fixing them will be extremely challenging at the very least. Don't just go around rearranging the deck chairs... Dan PS -- I made a comment in the new gTLD forum about ICANN's policy-making structure, and I still think this is a huge problem: policy is made directly by what amount to special-interest lobbyists, without the presence of legislators who are accountable to a full constituency that directly elects them. As long as this remains the core dynamic of policy making at ICANN, and public input will continue to be limited in terms of "veto power" over bad policy along the way, as was demonstrated in the recent GNSO Council vote on the new gTLD report, there will remain a profound structural distortion in policy making at ICANN, plain and simple. All of the rhetoric about "multi-stakeholder" forms of policy making simply run cold for me. It flat-out doesn't work, and I don't see how it ever possibly could, no matter how it is tweaked and expanded and modified. It feels to me as if ICANN has decided that it has to find a way to geometrically "trisect the angle" and will not stop trying even when it has been demonstrated that it is theoretically impossible, because it saw that it could *bisect the angle* and sees no obvious reason that could not be extended to a 3-way split generally, especially because there is an existing precedent with a special case, namely a 270-degree angle split into 90-degree pieces. This idea of "consensus-based policy making" (as applied to matters of *general* public policy, above and beyond the narrow technical considerations of network stability/reliability) is a conceptual trap that seems to inform the most basic ideology of the organization, and it is ultimately kind of frightening to see otherwise intelligent and rational people sucked into this vortex of inevitable doom. As long as you accept this cognitive frame without question, I believe there is nothing you can do to solve the problems, no matter how many people are working in good faith at ICANN to try to do so. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 18:38:42 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:38:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> <006d01c7f388$47179c60$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <01d001c7f3fb$580b1290$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Sitting in on the seven-year Whois process as a first ICANN experience is not an enviable position, but even so, this response is so extraordinary it is verging on satire. Three short paras suggesting taking a more gentle approach in dealing with ICANN matters is met with 13 paragraphs that get increasingly angry and then start veering wildly between finger-pointing, conspiracy and wide-eyed denunciation. I honestly have no idea what I am supposed to do with this. Answers on a postcard please. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:55 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) At 9:55 AM +0100 9/10/07, Kieren McCarthy wrote: >> The ad that he provided as an example appears to be >> incoherent when one evaluates... > > >Dan, > >Since you have been so generous with your advice, would you accept some? > >If you wish to have your views properly considered, then reaching for the >strongest negative word each time while also making it clear your mind is >made up, is the least effective way of doing it. > >We are not negotiating a treaty here. ICANN is in a complex, challenging and >changing world and its systems have evolved to favour those that are willing >to work with others to reach a consensus view. > >If you relax the rhetoric and talk to people you will find a significant >number of them are working hard at fixing the issues you have identified. Fair enough, Kieren. My experience in the "consensus" process in the recent Whois WG probably primed me for extreme frustration, as meaningful consensus was ultimately systematically thwarted in that venue in my first-hand experience. And a big part of the problem there was that there were many at the table for whom consensus would be a uniformly losing proposition (at least so they thought), and because they (thought they) had nothing to gain they did not participate in good faith. In my experience, the ICANN process in this instance systematically favored those who did *not* wish to reach consensus. So rhetoric that suggests that ICANN's (policy making) systems in fact favor those who are willing to work for consensus seems to me either unforgivably naive, deliberately misleading, or abjectly clueless. Sorry to ruffle your feathers once more, but your statement above just seems like rhetorical spin-doctoring in the context of the pungent experience I had this spring and summer. If you really believe it, then I think you need to find yourself some way of getting information about ICANN's activities through some alternative channels that can complement whatever official channels you are using right now to find out what is going on in ICANN's policy processes. For sure, no one has time to directly monitor all of the PDPs et cetera first-hand, so I don't expect you to do it all yourself. Thus you must rely on others. Whom you choose to rely on will make a difference in the quality of your information. To be blunt, when it comes to sticky matters of contentious general public policy, ICANN seems to have been entirely unsuccessful in discovering real consensus, partly because the issues themselves do not allow it regardless of what ICANN tries to do. Some circles cannot be "squared", and as long as ICANN keeps trying to do the impossible, it will and must fail. What initially set me off, though, was the claim that "ICANN is indeed open" when in fact the best one can possibly say is that "some people at ICANN indeed endeavor for it to be open" (sorry to ruffle your feathers *yet again*, but either you are seeing it through rose glasses or you have relatively low standards of genuinely effective openness). The way you worded it seemed to imply that the intent was enough to suffice, even when there remain serious systematic obstacles to effective implementation of open participation policies at ICANN. Again, it struck me as spin, not a meaningful evaluation of the full reality. I don't know who exactly at ICANN is establishing the ideology and official rhetoric about ICANN's mission. I would have to assume that Paul Twomey is a big part of it, and that the Board has a good deal to do with it as well, because those are putatively the people who *should* have this responsibility, given the non-profit corporate organizational structure. And of course, the JPA and NTIA must impose a huge constraining influence as well. In any case, I see a substantial disconnect between rhetoric and reality here, and that is at the core of the most important ICANN disputes, as I noted previously. I honestly don't know all of the ins and outs of ICANN's institutional hierarchy, both among paid staff and among the pro bono policy-making participants. Perhaps there is no one who really does. But it is clear to me that there is serious chronic dysfunction in this institution, and it may reflect significant external forces that cannot entirely be controlled from within. But whatever the problems are, it appears that they are deep and structural, so tactical fixes are not likely to solve the profound conflicts that lie at the heart of the institution. The problems likely originate in the bylaws and the process that creates the bylaws, and fixing them will be extremely challenging at the very least. Don't just go around rearranging the deck chairs... Dan PS -- I made a comment in the new gTLD forum about ICANN's policy-making structure, and I still think this is a huge problem: policy is made directly by what amount to special-interest lobbyists, without the presence of legislators who are accountable to a full constituency that directly elects them. As long as this remains the core dynamic of policy making at ICANN, and public input will continue to be limited in terms of "veto power" over bad policy along the way, as was demonstrated in the recent GNSO Council vote on the new gTLD report, there will remain a profound structural distortion in policy making at ICANN, plain and simple. All of the rhetoric about "multi-stakeholder" forms of policy making simply run cold for me. It flat-out doesn't work, and I don't see how it ever possibly could, no matter how it is tweaked and expanded and modified. It feels to me as if ICANN has decided that it has to find a way to geometrically "trisect the angle" and will not stop trying even when it has been demonstrated that it is theoretically impossible, because it saw that it could *bisect the angle* and sees no obvious reason that could not be extended to a 3-way split generally, especially because there is an existing precedent with a special case, namely a 270-degree angle split into 90-degree pieces. This idea of "consensus-based policy making" (as applied to matters of *general* public policy, above and beyond the narrow technical considerations of network stability/reliability) is a conceptual trap that seems to inform the most basic ideology of the organization, and it is ultimately kind of frightening to see otherwise intelligent and rational people sucked into this vortex of inevitable doom. As long as you accept this cognitive frame without question, I believe there is nothing you can do to solve the problems, no matter how many people are working in good faith at ICANN to try to do so. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 10 19:13:47 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:13:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Okay Adam, thanks for your response. Here are some comments (not necessarily in the original order). First this : >Basic content of the ad was agreed by the NomCom and finalized with >the help of staff from a media agency ICANN uses. The agency also >advised on placement (Economist considered best, a well read >international mag, used by many large international organizations for >similar types of advert). Thoughts on improvements very welcome. This is backwards, as a process. The *ad professionals* should begin by exploring the reality of what ICANN is and does and where NomCom fits into the picture, the purpose of the ad, and finally the target audience and an appropriate substance and form for the message. Then the ad professionals should craft possible messages, with feedback from NomCom. But even more, ICANN should have its own marketing department that participates in this activity to ensure consistency, educate the ad professionals, and proceed through its own learning curve to develop growing in-house expertise in the task of marketing ICANN in a variety of specific circumstances. NomCom members are generally not advertising/marketing professionals and they frankly should not be expected to be prepared with the requisite expertise in conceptualizing how ads should be created for maximum effectiveness. Confining ad professionals to a final-tweak role ties their hands, and basically absolves them of the responsibility of actually understanding what the ad is intended to accomplish. My guess is that they were probably entirely oblivious to the fact that ICANN's work has any general public policy implications, and thus they had no chance of knowing that *that* should be at the core of the message. Placement also involves choice of context within the vehicle. Even though NomCom is a pro bono form of participation, it is more closely associated with job listings, thus even though you might get more "raw impressions" on a front cover page, you might get *better targeted* ad viewing in the classified/jobs section. After all, people looking to improve their professional standing might well consider beefing up their experience with pro bono work. Even within a single vehicle, the context of page placement within the makes a big difference. Next this: >Where would you suggest the Nominating Committee placed the ad for >positions, Let me fist ask you: what do you think the most likely target audience is for NomCom reps? How would you describe them in terms of personal/professional profile? Once there is a profile in place for the target audience, then one goes to media research (large syndicated annual studies of print media audiences, or even just the vehicles' own independent subscriber studies), and looks for the top vehicles that match the desired profile. You may well come up with the particular vehicles you used, but the messaging in the ad still has to speak to them properly. In this case, the messaging seemed wrong: > ... how would you have written it differently? I would start by focusing on the aspects of ICANN's work that pertain to general public policy, not focus on the "party line" of the technical mandate. People are more interested in general public policy than technical oversight, and the ad you sent made utterly no mention of it. That's the first hook that will get people interested. Also, there's way too much text in the ad. It turns people away, because there's no obvious hook to catch the eye immediately, and it takes some detailed concentration to chug through the verbiage to (a) make sense of it, and (b) find the hook that might grab attention. It looks like one of those "legal public notice" postings in the back of a neighborhood newspaper. Perfunctory according to some mandate, but ineffective in conveying a quick and pithy message. Since you *already* decided to use a URL to link to more detailed info, leave more of those details to the web page, and confine the print ad to the very basic message, and that must be phrased from the point of view of the reader: what's in it for *me*? The answer to that question goes first in biggest type face. A few contextual details follow. And since many people don't know what ICANN is, it would probably help to have bit somewhere that defuses the hesitation from lack of familiarity (to the effect of: you don't have to be an ICANN insider to help make a difference). What are the perks? (Note: I'm using very boring verbiage below -- once the items are settled, then their expression has to be made more active, and well-targeted to the context and sensibilities of the target audience. Once you choose your placements vehicles, talk directly to their own ad sales folks to get their advice on what their readers respond to the best.) - help choose policy makers who will help decide matters of important public policy, and participate in some working groups directly yourself - beef up your professional network in the Internet world and your CV - add to your first-hand knowledge of the increasingly important field of Internet governance by observing and participating directly Describe ICANN as a policy making institution, not a "technical coordination body". Technical coordination sounds like grunt work. Policy making sounds exciting and influential. The stuff listed above in buried in your third-to-last paragraph. The bullet points highlighted in your ad are virtually irrelevant for the initial message, should only be on the web page, or at best briefly/generically summarized in the ad as "Board members and other important policy making positions." You're reaching out to ICANN non-insiders, right? So don't include anything that only an inside would know or recognize as important. If you're only reaching out to ICANN insiders, BTW, then don't advertise in mass media in the first place. So, you have to get your purpose/audience clear first. >Note, the purpose was to encourage people to apply for positions the >NomCom had to fill, not conduct outreach for ICANN, not to increase >awareness. Of course, this whole sub-thread came about because there was a general claim being made that "ICANN ads don't work because nobody is interested in ICANN" (I paraphrase). I was talking about advertising the public comment periods in general mass media, if one wants to get members of the general public to participate. And then you presented this as an example of why ads don't work. One of my main points here is that each ad has a distinct purpose and its execution is unique, thus this experience does not generalize to "all ads that ICANN might place" -- the failure of this ad does not predict that any other ads would necessarily fail. All it says is that this ad didn't get much response, and it doesn't even demonstrate the specific cause. IMHO, the cause in this case was bad messaging and design, not lack of interest of an appropriate audience. You just gotta (1) identify the audience clearly, (2) find them in the right vehicles, and (3) talk to them in a way that makes sense to them. I think that items (1) and (3) here were not executed effectively, partly due to the wrong people being primarily in charge of the process. NomCom should not be in charge. NomCom should consult to educate advertising professionals who should be in charge (and *responsible* for the result, not simply contracted out to perform a relatively mechanical function). ICANN should have marketing personnel of some sort, staffed with professional expertise in advertising and/or marketing (not journalism or public relations). I see no such person on the ICANN web site staff page. This is an egregious vacancy, IMHO. >I think many people are interested in ICANN, that's why the press >cover it. ... But it is certainly true that few people want to volunteer >to do work. There are always *some* people for whom it is a win/win proposition. I was one of those people this year, WRT the Whois WG (and I don't know if you count the Keep The Core Neutral campaign, but since it is associated with NCUC via one of its member orgs, IP Justice, I would count it, myself). I've done lots of volunteer work in the past when it served my purposes (mainly getting more experience in a field or networking opportunities -- you get the best networking when you actually *work* with people). There are actually *lots* of people out there who volunteer for a whole variety of reasons -- many NPOs depend utterly on them to do good work that public governments have recused themselves from in the last several decades. But perhaps the key word you used is "work" -- people want to volunteer for all sorts of reasons, but to do "work" is low on the list. If you think of ICANN policy making as "work" then your mindset will immediately turn people off who might otherwise be more attracted to participate. There are a lot of things that take effort that are not "work" in peoples' minds because they are *rewarding*. Focus on the reward, not the effort. If there is enough reward, the effort will come easily. And the direct reward for volunteering is generally not cash or other tangible assets, but the indirect rewards can be considerable and cash may come as an indirect result (beefing up the CV, etc.). But if you look at most standards making processes (ITU, >IETF, ATIS) they face the same problems, when it comes down to people >doing sustained work (i.e. drafting) the numbers are very few and >often the same people. If you continue to think of ICANN as simply a "standards-making body" you will tend to repel the people who care about the general public policy issues that ICANN is addressing as we write. This is the cognitive dissonance I cannot resolve for ICANN simply by stating it outright as I've now done repeatedly. ICANN has to believe this down deep, and integrate it substantively and meaningfully into both its internal and public rhetoric. Otherwise many of the best people who might otherwise be attracted to it will not know that there is anything to be attracted to. 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 pouzin at well.com Mon Sep 10 22:12:32 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 04:12:32 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [governance] new Civil Society WG on Information Networks Governance Message-ID: <200709110212.l8B2CWjv006566@merlin.enst.fr> For/pour information English in second part http://www.wsis-gov.org Lors de la consultation du FGI le 3 septembre à Genève, j'ai introduit la contribution suivante: - - - - - - Je souhaitais à cette occasion annoncer la création d'un nouveau groupe de travail de la Société Civile. Le nom de ce groupe est: Groupe de travail de la Société Civile sur la Gouvernance des Réseaux d'Information. Pourquoi créer un autre groupe de travail ? De fait il existe déjà un groupe intitulé Internet Governance Caucus. Selon nos observations on trouve dans ce groupe une forte présence de la "communauté internet", l'internité pourrait-on dire. Cette population est liée à certains gouvernements, au secteur marchand, à des ONG, et à la vache à lait des noms de domaine. Une partie de la Société Civile ne partage pas ces intérêts. De ce fait il n'y a pas de majorité pour un consensus sur des réformes significatives de la gouvernance de l'internet. Il apparait qu'il serait préférable de tracer des lignes plus nettes, de laisser la communauté internet faire du lobby pour son propre domaine, et de créer un groupe de travail de la Société Civile avec des objectifs distincts. Quels objectifs ? Identifier, et promouvoir des catalyseurs du développement sociétal, prenant totalement en compte les diversités existantes, p.ex. culturelles, linguistiques, géographiques, politiques, etc. Adapter les structures de gouvernance aux besoins des gens, plutôt que l'inverse. En bref, mettre en œuvre l'Agenda de Tunis. Quelles propositions de structures pour ce nouveau groupe ? Il est maintenant créé, en date du 3 septembre 2007. Il est international. Une rotation du président, ou du coordinateur, selon le terme préféré par le groupe, aura lieu tous les six mois. Le premier est Louis Pouzin. Le groupe est multilingue, au début en anglais, espagnol et français, et autres langues par la suite selon possibilités pratiques. Il y aura un comité d'éthique, chargé d'évaluer les cas possibles de conflits d'intérêts. D'autres dispositifs seront nécessaires, p.ex. pour les nominations, votes, organisation d'évènements, etc. Ils seront définis par le groupe. La participation est ouverte à toute personne respectant les règles du groupe, et n'ayant pas d'activité dans la communauté internet. Une liste de discussion est ouverte, gov at wsis-gov.org. Toute personne peut s'y enregistrer. Les personnes intéressées peuvent y participer dès maintenant. Merci de votre attention. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - English. During the IGF consultation meeting on Sep 3 in Geneva, I introduced the following contribution. - - - - - - I wish to use this opportunity to announce the creation of a new working group in the Civil Society. This group is called Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance. Why create another working group on internet governance? Indeed, there is already a group called Internet Governance Caucus. From our observations there is in this group a strong presence of the internet community, "internity" for short. They have ties with some governments, with the business sector, with NGO's, and with the domain name milk cow. Quite a few people in the Civil Society do not share these interests. As a result there is no majority for a consensus on significant reforms of internet governance. It appears that it would be better to draw clearer lines, let the internet community lobby for its own turf, and have a Civil Society Working Group with a distinct agenda. What agenda ? To identify, and promote enablers of societal development, taking full account of existing diversities, e.g. culture, language, geography, political system, etc. To adjust governance structures to people's needs, rather than the opposite. In short, implement the Tunis Agenda. What structures do we propose ? This working group is now created, as of 3rd September 2007. It is international. A chairman, or coordinator, whatever term the group prefers, is rotated every 6th month. The 1st one is myself. The group is multilingual, starting with English, French, Spanish, and other languages when it becomes practicable. There shall be an ethics committee, in charge of evaluating potential conflicts of interests. Additional mechanisms are needed, e.g. for nominations, votes, events, etc. They will be defined by the group. Participation is open to everyone abiding by the group rules, and not involved with the internet community. A discussion list is open, gov at wsis-gov.org. Anyone may subscribe. People interested may join in now. Thank you. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon Sep 10 23:15:31 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:15:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads ... - this thread is getting too long In-Reply-To: <01d001c7f3fb$580b1290$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> <006d01c7f388$47179c60$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> <01d001c7f3fb$580b1290$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> Message-ID: <46E60853.5080504@cavebear.com> A far as places to find good people go, the Economist isn't a bad choice. That is, it is not a bad choice if one is looking for people to do economic and social regulation. Is ICANN supposed to be doing economic and social engineering? As Dan pointed, out, our endevours in internet governance have been accompanied by several myths. (For some prior comments on internet mythology see my note at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000114.html ) One of these myths is that ICANN does technical regulation and not economic/social regulation. The reality of things is that ICANN, and much of what is discussed under the banner of internet governance is economic and social regulation. I don't like that reality, but I seem to be in the minority. There are matters of technical import that really do need governance - there are internet resources that really and sincerely are critical - such as IP addresses, routing prefixes, and end-to-end quality to support user applications, i.e. CIR, a topic that some want to exclude entirely. [BTW - I exclude domain names from my list of these essential technical matters; I do not consider domain names to be in need of centralized oversight at all, but that is another topic for another day.] These matters, with the limited exception of certain aspects of IP addresses, not being squarely faced; we are leaving most of the matters of technical governance - the jobs of keeping the wheels and gears of the net turning - to chance and the good will of a relative few, but mortal, people. Now, in the great scheme of things economic and social regulation are things that need to be done - someday, somewhere, somehow. They are difficult. Unfortunately, as poorly as we are coming to grips with the technical matters, we are even more poorly prepared to face, much less address, these soft, squishy issues that tend to have a stronger impact on the lives of real people. Solving those things will require the input from people who read The Economist. And it will also require input from people who read Harpers. And from people who read every RFC and IEEE document, people who live on the internet and - and this is an important "and" - people who can not afford more than intermittent access, people who have physical impairments, and people who are neither wealthy nor speak English. Any institution of internet governance that is not tightly and strictly tied, in reality, to technical governance needs a couple of key ingredients: - An honest representation, to itself and of itself, regarding what it is doing, why it is doing it, what principles guide it, who's ox it is protecting, who are the intended beneficiaries, and what are its limitations. - A foundation of legitimacy in the eyes of those who are its intended beneficiaries and the targets of its regulatory constraints. Legitimacy does not grow well in a soil fertilized by fiat and exclusion. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 10 23:19:20 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:19:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 4:13 PM -0700 9/10/07, Dan Krimm wrote: >Okay Adam, thanks for your response. Here are some comments (not >necessarily in the original order). > Dan, thanks. I'll pass your comments on to the NomCom's staff support and ask them to keep for the 2008 committee chair. Adam >First this : > >>Basic content of the ad was agreed by the NomCom and finalized with >>the help of staff from a media agency ICANN uses. The agency also >>advised on placement (Economist considered best, a well read >>international mag, used by many large international organizations for >>similar types of advert). Thoughts on improvements very welcome. > >This is backwards, as a process. The *ad professionals* should begin by >exploring the reality of what ICANN is and does and where NomCom fits into >the picture, the purpose of the ad, and finally the target audience and an >appropriate substance and form for the message. Then the ad professionals >should craft possible messages, with feedback from NomCom. > >But even more, ICANN should have its own marketing department that >participates in this activity to ensure consistency, educate the ad >professionals, and proceed through its own learning curve to develop >growing in-house expertise in the task of marketing ICANN in a variety of >specific circumstances. > >NomCom members are generally not advertising/marketing professionals and >they frankly should not be expected to be prepared with the requisite >expertise in conceptualizing how ads should be created for maximum >effectiveness. Confining ad professionals to a final-tweak role ties their >hands, and basically absolves them of the responsibility of actually >understanding what the ad is intended to accomplish. My guess is that they >were probably entirely oblivious to the fact that ICANN's work has any >general public policy implications, and thus they had no chance of knowing >that *that* should be at the core of the message. > >Placement also involves choice of context within the vehicle. Even though >NomCom is a pro bono form of participation, it is more closely associated >with job listings, thus even though you might get more "raw impressions" on >a front cover page, you might get *better targeted* ad viewing in the >classified/jobs section. After all, people looking to improve their >professional standing might well consider beefing up their experience with >pro bono work. Even within a single vehicle, the context of page placement >within the makes a big difference. > > >Next this: > >>Where would you suggest the Nominating Committee placed the ad for >>positions, > >Let me fist ask you: what do you think the most likely target audience is >for NomCom reps? How would you describe them in terms of >personal/professional profile? > >Once there is a profile in place for the target audience, then one goes to >media research (large syndicated annual studies of print media audiences, >or even just the vehicles' own independent subscriber studies), and looks >for the top vehicles that match the desired profile. > >You may well come up with the particular vehicles you used, but the >messaging in the ad still has to speak to them properly. In this case, the >messaging seemed wrong: > > > >> ... how would you have written it differently? > >I would start by focusing on the aspects of ICANN's work that pertain to >general public policy, not focus on the "party line" of the technical >mandate. People are more interested in general public policy than >technical oversight, and the ad you sent made utterly no mention of it. >That's the first hook that will get people interested. > >Also, there's way too much text in the ad. It turns people away, because >there's no obvious hook to catch the eye immediately, and it takes some >detailed concentration to chug through the verbiage to (a) make sense of >it, and (b) find the hook that might grab attention. It looks like one of >those "legal public notice" postings in the back of a neighborhood >newspaper. Perfunctory according to some mandate, but ineffective in >conveying a quick and pithy message. > >Since you *already* decided to use a URL to link to more detailed info, >leave more of those details to the web page, and confine the print ad to >the very basic message, and that must be phrased from the point of view of >the reader: what's in it for *me*? The answer to that question goes first >in biggest type face. A few contextual details follow. And since many >people don't know what ICANN is, it would probably help to have bit >somewhere that defuses the hesitation from lack of familiarity (to the >effect of: you don't have to be an ICANN insider to help make a difference). > >What are the perks? (Note: I'm using very boring verbiage below -- once >the items are settled, then their expression has to be made more active, >and well-targeted to the context and sensibilities of the target audience. >Once you choose your placements vehicles, talk directly to their own ad >sales folks to get their advice on what their readers respond to the best.) > > - help choose policy makers who will help decide matters of important >public policy, and participate in some working groups directly yourself > - beef up your professional network in the Internet world and your CV > - add to your first-hand knowledge of the increasingly important field of >Internet governance by observing and participating directly > >Describe ICANN as a policy making institution, not a "technical >coordination body". Technical coordination sounds like grunt work. Policy >making sounds exciting and influential. The stuff listed above in buried >in your third-to-last paragraph. The bullet points highlighted in your ad >are virtually irrelevant for the initial message, should only be on the web >page, or at best briefly/generically summarized in the ad as "Board members >and other important policy making positions." You're reaching out to ICANN >non-insiders, right? So don't include anything that only an inside would >know or recognize as important. > >If you're only reaching out to ICANN insiders, BTW, then don't advertise in >mass media in the first place. So, you have to get your purpose/audience >clear first. > > > >>Note, the purpose was to encourage people to apply for positions the >>NomCom had to fill, not conduct outreach for ICANN, not to increase >>awareness. > >Of course, this whole sub-thread came about because there was a general >claim being made that "ICANN ads don't work because nobody is interested in >ICANN" (I paraphrase). I was talking about advertising the public comment >periods in general mass media, if one wants to get members of the general >public to participate. And then you presented this as an example of why >ads don't work. > >One of my main points here is that each ad has a distinct purpose and its >execution is unique, thus this experience does not generalize to "all ads >that ICANN might place" -- the failure of this ad does not predict that any >other ads would necessarily fail. All it says is that this ad didn't get >much response, and it doesn't even demonstrate the specific cause. > >IMHO, the cause in this case was bad messaging and design, not lack of >interest of an appropriate audience. You just gotta (1) identify the >audience clearly, (2) find them in the right vehicles, and (3) talk to them >in a way that makes sense to them. I think that items (1) and (3) here >were not executed effectively, partly due to the wrong people being >primarily in charge of the process. NomCom should not be in charge. >NomCom should consult to educate advertising professionals who should be in >charge (and *responsible* for the result, not simply contracted out to >perform a relatively mechanical function). > >ICANN should have marketing personnel of some sort, staffed with >professional expertise in advertising and/or marketing (not journalism or >public relations). I see no such person on the ICANN web site staff page. >This is an egregious vacancy, IMHO. > > > >>I think many people are interested in ICANN, that's why the press >>cover it. ... But it is certainly true that few people want to volunteer > >to do work. > >There are always *some* people for whom it is a win/win proposition. I was >one of those people this year, WRT the Whois WG (and I don't know if you >count the Keep The Core Neutral campaign, but since it is associated with >NCUC via one of its member orgs, IP Justice, I would count it, myself). > >I've done lots of volunteer work in the past when it served my purposes >(mainly getting more experience in a field or networking opportunities -- >you get the best networking when you actually *work* with people). There >are actually *lots* of people out there who volunteer for a whole variety >of reasons -- many NPOs depend utterly on them to do good work that public >governments have recused themselves from in the last several decades. > >But perhaps the key word you used is "work" -- people want to volunteer for >all sorts of reasons, but to do "work" is low on the list. If you think of >ICANN policy making as "work" then your mindset will immediately turn >people off who might otherwise be more attracted to participate. There are >a lot of things that take effort that are not "work" in peoples' minds >because they are *rewarding*. > >Focus on the reward, not the effort. If there is enough reward, the effort >will come easily. And the direct reward for volunteering is generally not >cash or other tangible assets, but the indirect rewards can be considerable >and cash may come as an indirect result (beefing up the CV, etc.). > > > > But if you look at most standards making processes (ITU, >>IETF, ATIS) they face the same problems, when it comes down to people >>doing sustained work (i.e. drafting) the numbers are very few and >>often the same people. > >If you continue to think of ICANN as simply a "standards-making body" you >will tend to repel the people who care about the general public policy >issues that ICANN is addressing as we write. > >This is the cognitive dissonance I cannot resolve for ICANN simply by >stating it outright as I've now done repeatedly. > >ICANN has to believe this down deep, and integrate it substantively and >meaningfully into both its internal and public rhetoric. Otherwise many of >the best people who might otherwise be attracted to it will not know that >there is anything to be attracted to. > >Dan >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 11 00:29:28 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:29:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF' References: <20070905132120.404A1E04EC@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46DEF628.50408@wzb.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B486@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907130555.03bee480@lacnic.net> <46E1A35F.7040308@rits.org.br> <7.0.1.0.1.20070907174120.03feb1e0@lacnic.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D923@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CBB@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D929@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B4B8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CC8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >* 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 > >I'd have picked the second bullet only and left >the first for access and perhaps openness >(standards). Right, I see now. I agree. I keep forgetting that "critical internet resources" is a rather poorly defined grab-bag of things in IGF. Any discussion that tries to mix peering and interconnection pricing with DNS or IP addressing issues is going to go nowhere fast. And an IGF discussing "convergent technologies" could indeed be a diversion or distraction. Here's what matters at this point. For all this sound and fury about the discussion of cIr on this list, it is not clear to me what others on this list want to be discussed about it. What are perceived as the substantive issues? Anyone who has visited the IGP site knows what WE think the substantive issues are. But what about the rest of you? Unless I've missed a flurry of emails, we seem to have been utterly consumed by the discussion of whether we will discuss them and who will discuss them, and less with what specific issue or problem is to be discussed & what are the priorities. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 11 00:33:45 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:33:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF References: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> As suggested in my last post, it makes little sense to discuss speakers without a clear idea of what is to be spoken about. Here's a quick taxonomy of cIr issues: A. Virtual resource economics A1. IPv4 address exhaustion: appropriate responses A2. IPv6 address allocation policies and their impact on ISP industry, competition, industry development and routing A3. Regulations and policies applied to the domain name industry A4. Multilingual domains B. Governance structures B1. ICANN as institution, its political oversight and reforms/changes in its structure B2. Problem of trust anchor (signing the root) in DNSSEC B3. Role of national governments cIr governance; i.e., GAC, the Tunis Agenda "public policy principles" C. Human Rights and cIr C1. DNS Whois and privacy C2. Freedom of expression and ICANN's new gTLD policy D. Security and cIr D1. DNSSEC implementation D2. Secure routing Now this list can no doubt be improved and/or expanded but it's a start. I note that topics A1, B2, B3, C2, and D1 are all addressed in workshops. As Bertrand suggests, a plenary session that chooses to address any of these issues should draw to some extent from workshop speakers. -------------- 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 Tue Sep 11 03:50:36 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:50:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: new Civil Society WG on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <200709110212.l8B2CWjv006566@merlin.enst.fr> References: <200709110212.l8B2CWjv006566@merlin.enst.fr> Message-ID: <20070911075036.GB28354@nic.fr> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 04:12:32AM +0200, Louis Pouzin wrote a message of 52 lines which said: > From our observations there is in this group a strong presence of > the internet community, "internity" for short. As a fan of Isaac Asimov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov), I support the use of this new word. See the novel "The end of eternity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity) where a secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a poiwerful technique :-) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Tue Sep 11 03:49:00 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:49:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bush Administration Ramps Up Secrecy Message-ID: <46E6486C.4050906@iafrica.com> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091007A.shtml Bush Administration Ramps Up Secrecy By William Fisher t r u t h o u t | Report Monday 10 September 2007 The Bush administration is continuing its campaign to keep the public in the dark about the federal government's policies and decisions and to suppress discussion of those policies, their underpinnings, and their implications. This is the conclusion reached in the latest annual "report card" on government secrecy compiled by OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of consumer and good government groups, librarians, environmentalists, labor leaders, journalists, and others who seek to promote greater transparency in public institutions. Summarizing developments during the past year, the report card says, "Government secrecy, particularly in the executive branch, continues to expand across a broad array of agencies and actions, including military procurement, new private inventions, and the scientific and technical advice that the government receives." But, the authors of the report also see "glimmers of progress toward more openness and examples of continued determination on the part of the public and its representatives." They conclude, "Even as more and more categories that exclude information from access are created by agencies, the public use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information from our government continues to rise." The report card's principal findings for fiscal year 2007 include: * More than 25 percent of all federal dollars ($107.5 billion) awarded to Defense Department contractors were without competition. Only a third of contract dollars were subject to full and open competition. On average since 2000, more than a quarter of all contract funding was not competed. * Some 18 percent of the Department of Defense's FY 2007 acquisition budget is classified. These so-called "black programs" amounted to $31.5 billion. Classified acquisition funding has more than doubled in real terms since fiscal year 1995, the report said. * The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved 2,176 orders by the Justice Department - rejecting only one - in 2006. The Court, established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) following the Watergate scandals to restrict government snooping on citizens, has been at the center of a political firestorm since President Bush revealed the administration had been conducting electronic surveillance without seeking FISA warrants. * The administration continued to invoke the so-called "state secrets" privilege, which allows the president to withhold documents from the courts, Congress and the public. At the height of the Cold War, the administration used the privilege only six times between 1953 and 1976. Since 2001, it has been used a reported 39 times - an average of six times a year in 6.5 years, or more than double the average (2.46) over the previous 24 years. * Requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) totaled 21,412,736, an increase of 1,462,189 over the previous year. The report card says backlogs of unfilled request remain significant: The oldest FOIA request in the federal government has now been pending for more than 20 years. * The government recovered more than $3.1 billion in settlements and judgments as a result of complaints from whistleblowers. Over the last two decades, whistleblowers helped the federal government recover more than $18 billion according to the latest figures from the US Department of Justice. * While the number of original classified documents decreased from 258,633 in 2005 to 231,995 in 2007, classification activity still remains significantly higher than before 2001. For every dollar the government spent declassifying documents in 2006, it spent $185 maintaining the secrets already on the books, a $51 increase from last year. Although more pages were declassified this year, the total publicly reported amount spent on declassification decreased. However, the report card notes, the intelligence agencies, which account for a large segment of the declassification numbers, are excluded from the total reported figures. * Government departments and agencies continued their practice of designating documents as "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU). Only some 19 percent of 107 SBU designations were based on formally promulgated regulations, about half with comment and half without. The rest - 82 percent - were made up by the agencies as they went along, the report card charges. * In six years, President Bush has issued at least 151 signing statements, challenging 1149 provisions of laws. "In the 211 years of our Republic to 2000, fewer than 600 signing statements that took issue with the bills were issued," the report card asserts. In six years, it says, President Bush has issued at least 151 signing statements, challenging 1,149 provisions of laws, adding, "In the 211 years of our Republic to 2000, fewer than 600 signing statements that took issue with the bills were issued. Among recent presidents, Reagan issued 71 statements challenging provisions of laws before him; G.W.H. Bush issued 146; Clinton, 105." The most notorious of the current president's signing statements related to the so-called McCain Amendment to a 2005 defense authorization bill that barred the "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees. The presidential statement raised serious questions about whether Bush intended to obey this new law. * The report card cites a report by the Justice Department's inspector general indicating the government made 143,074 National Security Letter (NSL) requests between 2003 and 2005. The number for 2006 remains classified. NSLs can be used to obtain information about individuals without the government applying for a court-reviewed warrant. With 2,176 secret surveillance orders approved in 2006, federal surveillance activity under the jurisdiction of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has more than doubled in five years. * The federal penchant for secrecy is also spilling over to state governments, the report card claims. Since 2001, it says, "States have continued to introduce and enact new laws that limit, rather than loosen, access to government information at the state and local level. In that period, some 339 bills were introduced in the states and 266 passed the respective legislatures. The largest number of bills introduced (114) had to do with expanded executive powers, confidentiality based on federal regulations or programs, and closure of otherwise public meetings for security meetings. Fewer than half (52) passed; the lowest percentage of passage among 6 categories of bills." OpenTheGovernment.org concludes, "The current administration has exercised an unprecedented level not only of restriction of access to information about federal government's policies and decisions, but also of suppression of discussion of those policies, their underpinnings, and their implications. It has also increasingly refused to be held accountable to the public through the oversight responsibilities of Congress. These practices inhibit democracy and our representative government; neither the public nor Congress can make informed decisions in these circumstances. Our open society is undermined and made insecure." The Open the Government coalition includes representatives of the Federation of American Scientists, the Sunlight Foundation, the American Association of Law Libraries, OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the National Freedom of Information Coalition, the US Public Interest Research Group, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Society of Professional Journalists, the Fund for Constitutional Government, the Center for American Progress, the AFL-CIO and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In a related development, the White House has declared the Office of Administration (OA) exempt from the FOIA to avoid complying with a request to make public its information about five million missing emails. Citizens for Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a FOIA request with the White House's OA for records that would document the White House's knowledge of the missing emails, its failure to restore the email or put in place an electronic record-keeping system that would prevent this problem, and the possibility the emails were purposefully deleted. In response, the Justice Department declared the OA is not subject to FOIA. CREW is suing the White House's OA for failing to respond to their request. At least five million emails "disappeared" between March 2003 and October 2005, according to a report by CREW. The missing emails were discovered by the White House in 2005, according to a briefing given to House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff by Keith Roberts, the deputy general counsel of the White House Office. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California), chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, is demanding the OA turn over its analysis of the email system, conducted by the Office of the Chief Information Officer. According to the letter Rep. Waxman sent to White House counsel Fred Fielding on August 30, Roberts informed the Oversight Committee that an unidentified company working for the Information Assurance Directorate of the Office of the Chief Information Officer was responsible for daily audits of the email system and the email archiving process. According to Rep. Waxman's letter, Roberts was not able to explain why the daily audits conducted by this contractor did not detect the problems in the archive system when they first began. The revelation that there were daily audits suggests emails were destroyed, Anne Weismann, general counsel of CREW, told Bloomberg News. The White House recently changed its FOIA web site to exclude the OA from White House entities subject to FOIA. A note in the FOIA sections of the OA web site now says, "The Office of Administration, whose sole function is to advise and assist the President, and which has no substantial independent authority, is not subject to FOIA and related authorities." Under OA's FOIA Regulations, it says, "The OA's Regulations concerning FOIA are currently being updated." OA's annual FOIA reports are available on the White House web site for 1996-2006. In 2006, OA processed 65 requests and spent $87,772 on FOIA processing (including appeals). The National Security Archive, a member of the OpenTheGovernment.org coalition, filed a lawsuit against the White House last week seeking the recovery and preservation of the emails. William Fisher has managed economic development programs in the Middle East and in many other parts of the world for the US State Department and USAID for the past thirty years. He began his work life as a journalist for newspapers and for the Associated Press in Florida. Fisher also served in the international affairs area during the Kennedy administration. Go to The World According to Bill Fisher for more. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Sep 11 04:18:28 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 01:18:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46E64F54.6070501@cavebear.com> Milton L Mueller wrote: > > As suggested in my last post, it makes little sense to discuss speakers > without a clear idea of what is to be spoken about. > Here's a quick taxonomy of cIr issues: I'd add end-to-end principle in the sense that the internet, if it to really support edge driven deployment of applications, needs to have some means to assure (not guarantee) to users that they can obtain (perhaps involving the transfer of some money and the availability of adequate resources) the end-to-end service quality needed to support whatever application they want to deploy. (I have trouble expressing this thought with clarity. I do not believe that the net has infinite resources or that applications that require fast, low jitter, or fat pipes ought to get a free ride at the expense of others. The picture in my head is of someone, let's say a national government of a "southern" nation, who wants to deploy a service, such as international VoIP, and is willing to pay for adequate service to the "northern" countries. The governance issue is how that request can be made and how providers can interact to accommodate it.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Sep 11 08:15:05 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:15:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, I left the advisory group meeting a day early, but when I left it was unanimous (unanimous to the extent that it was supported by everyone who spoke on the issue and no one spoke against) in adopting the proposal you see in the meeting report: "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. There will be a balanced panel of five to seven experts, including the major players, reflecting a range of views " (end quote) The advisory group operates under the Chatham House Rule so I cannot identify the member that proposed this formulation, however, China's contribution to the open consultation on Sept 3 supports using para 13a as the base definition for the session. The AG attempted to reflect consensus as it heard it in contributions. I personally favor your proposal below (except C1 and C2 which I think irrelevant right now to IGF, but that's just me), but I think there is strong consensus for this broader approach and that is the one we should work to now. Of course that doesn't mean speakers cannot focus on the issues they want to focus on, or contributions and questions from the floor are limited in anyway. Adam >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7F42D.60455CFD" > > >As suggested in my last post, it makes little >sense to discuss speakers without a clear idea >of what is to be spoken about. >Here's a quick taxonomy of cIr issues: > >A. Virtual resource economics > A1. IPv4 address exhaustion: appropriate responses > A2. IPv6 address allocation policies and their >impact on ISP industry, competition, industry >development and routing > A3. Regulations and policies applied to the domain name industry > A4. Multilingual domains > >B. Governance structures > B1. ICANN as institution, its political >oversight and reforms/changes in its structure > B2. Problem of trust anchor (signing the root) in DNSSEC > B3. Role of national governments cIr >governance; i.e., GAC, the Tunis Agenda "public >policy principles" > >C. Human Rights and cIr > C1. DNS Whois and privacy > C2. Freedom of expression and ICANN's new gTLD policy > >D. Security and cIr > D1. DNSSEC implementation > D2. Secure routing > >Now this list can no doubt be improved and/or expanded but it's a start. > >I note that topics A1, B2, B3, C2, and D1 are >all addressed in workshops. As Bertrand >suggests, a plenary session that chooses to >address any of these issues should draw to some >extent from workshop speakers.  > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 10:15:41 2007 From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:15:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0333ACEF@proton.iisd.ca> >From September 17 to 28, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is hosting an e-conference to engage researchers, practitioners and policy analysts in an open discussion on the intersections between Internet governance and sustainable development. Your participation will help advance the debate. Please visit the following url for full details, http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, or read on for a brief summary. Sustainable development efforts cannot be conceived without global communications and knowledge exchange: therefore, the outcomes of the Internet governance debate will affect our ability to manage the social, environmental and economic factors of sustainable development. Beyond this fundamental link, numerous and diverse issue areas exist where the Internet governance and sustainable development policy communities could discover mutual challenges and learn from each others approaches to confronting them, setting the stage for future cooperation. Over the past year, in collaboration with partners and stakeholders, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposed to focus on five areas in which further exploration of potential links between these two communities could be anchored: - governance processes; - economic barriers to development; - the capacity of developing countries to participate in international governance; - access to local knowledge as a critical input to decision-making; and - indicators for development. By commissioning a pair of exploratory papers on each of these topics, IISD aimed to expand the links between these two communities of researchers and practitioners who have spent over three decades working in relative isolation from one another, creating gaps in vocabulary and culture. Each of these papers defines the issue area; describes its relevant governance structures and processes; identifies the main issues currently being debated; articulates actual and potential links between ICTs/Internet governance and sustainable development; and proposes areas for further study. The purpose of this e-conference is to give participants an opportunity to share their thoughts, comments, or questions regarding the content presented in these paper pairs. You are encouraged join this e-conference to engage other participant in a discussion of common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and how lessons from one side might inform progress on the other, in the context of each issue area. Copies of the papers can be downloaded at http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, and an email containing links to the papers will be sent when you confirm your subscription. ** HOW TO PARTICIPATE ** You can subscribe via the WWW. Please see: To participate via e-mail, here are the basic commands: SUBSCRIBING: Send a message to with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe igsd [your name] MODERATOR / LIST OWNER: If you have any questions about the list or problems with your subscription please contact the list owner at: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 10:18:01 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:18:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] ICANN Summit Progress Report Message-ID: perhaps of interest given the recent thread on ICANN and the general public The at large list is open to anyone interested. Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:59:23 -0400 >Thread-Topic: ICANN Summit Progress Report >Thread-Index: Acfz1FHQz8cGYwCoSCeQZxNEMlws6Q== >From: "Thompson, Darlene" >To: , > , >X-EMWD-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Not >scanned: please contact your Internet E-Mail >Service Provider for details >X-EMWD-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, > score=3.997, required 5, BAYES_99 2.50, HTML_MESSAGE 0.00, > MIME_QP_LONG_LINE 1.40, RDNS_NONE 0.10), >X-EMWD-MailScanner-SpamScore: sss >Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Summit Progress Report >X-BeenThere: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org >List-Id: At-Large Worldwide Community > >List-Unsubscribe: >, > >List-Archive: > >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: >, > >Sender: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org >X-EMWD-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information >X-EMWD-MailScanner-From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Hi all, > >Evan and I just has a conference call with Nick >regarding the Summit plans so far. It's of >course critical that we come up with a plan that >meets the expectations of the community, as well >as ICANN itself as it will be funding all the >costs. As it turns out from our discussion, our >goals for the Summit are remarkably similar. > >From the point of view of ICANN (as expressed by >Nick), the At-Large Community ultimately exists >to provide the general public's point of view on >relevant issues. For the Summit to be considered >as a worthwhile achievement of that goal ­ not >to mention provide value for its substantial >expense -- it must actually produce policy >analysis and recommendations to the rest of the >ICANN community. > >Certainly educational and social components are >vital. However, for the Summit to succeed a >significant amount of education and discussion >on issues must take place in advance, within the >RALOs and ALSs, with final debate taking place >and formal consensus recommendations being >delivered at the Summit. The event's success >will be judged ­ within ICANN itself ­ by its >ability to provide useful recommendations and >analysis regarding issues of importance, >reflecting the diverse but common needs of the >At-Large community. > >Summit delegates, in order to be funded, will be >expected to have already raised relevant issues >within their constituencies. We received >commitments from Nick that sufficient background >information will be provided in many languages, >to allow such debate to start well in advance. > >We started with the attached ICANN Ensemble >document. Nick liked many of the ideas shown >there but was concerned the plan did not >sufficiently commit the Summit to produce >concrete policy documents. > >Here is what we need to do: > >1. >Decide which (and how many) policies we would >like to work on. Obviously we don¹t have time to >work on ALL of ICANN¹s policies at once. So, we >need to choose between 3 to 5 of the current >issues and work on them. This can be achieved by >an on-line poll. (While it will be possible to >start debate on long-term issues to be turned >into policy at a later date, it is important to >choose a number of issues on which At-Large can >have an impact within the coming year.) > >2. >Create actual realistic milestones. We need to >have dates and things accomplished by those >dates to prove to ICANN that we are actually >working on this stuff. When they see this, they >will be much more likely to fund this venture. >This will also be our opportunity to get a >commitment out of them. They won¹t commit unless >they see work getting done. > >3. >Only those that put the effort into doing the >policy work will have the opportunity to go. >ICANN will not fund those that just want travel >or to socialize. Period. > >ICANN will, more than likely, be funding the >Secretariats and Chairs to go to the LA meeting >to discuss this further. They may also fund one >or two others but that is it. The group will >schedule at least one conference call during the >LA meeting to involve anyone else who wants to >participate but will not be there. > > > > > > >Content-Type: application/msword; > name="ICANN Ensemble.doc" >Content-Description: ICANN Ensemble.doc >Content-Disposition: attachment; > filename="ICANN Ensemble.doc" > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN Ensemble.doc Type: application/msword Size: 85504 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 11 11:55:42 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:55:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070910053935.E54FDE044A@smtp3.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD975623E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CDF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Adam, Thanks for the judicious clarification. However, my purpose in formulating the taxonomy was not to suggest that it be strictly adhered to as the controlling agenda of the session, which I realize is outside of my and IGC's control. My intent was to lay out the cIr issues clearly for CS actors here on the list, so that we can decide which ones are priorities and should be addressed in the discussion, by whomever we happen to get onto the panel. 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: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:15 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] Substantive issues in CIR: speakers for IGF Milton, I left the advisory group meeting a day early, but when I left it was unanimous (unanimous to the extent that it was supported by everyone who spoke on the issue and no one spoke against) in adopting the proposal you see in the meeting report: "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. There will be a balanced panel of five to seven experts, including the major players, reflecting a range of views " (end quote) The advisory group operates under the Chatham House Rule so I cannot identify the member that proposed this formulation, however, China's contribution to the open consultation on Sept 3 supports using para 13a as the base definition for the session. The AG attempted to reflect consensus as it heard it in contributions. I personally favor your proposal below (except C1 and C2 which I think irrelevant right now to IGF, but that's just me), but I think there is strong consensus for this broader approach and that is the one we should work to now. Of course that doesn't mean speakers cannot focus on the issues they want to focus on, or contributions and questions from the floor are limited in anyway. Adam >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7F42D.60455CFD" > > >As suggested in my last post, it makes little >sense to discuss speakers without a clear idea >of what is to be spoken about. >Here's a quick taxonomy of cIr issues: > >A. Virtual resource economics > A1. IPv4 address exhaustion: appropriate responses > A2. IPv6 address allocation policies and their >impact on ISP industry, competition, industry >development and routing > A3. Regulations and policies applied to the domain name industry > A4. Multilingual domains > >B. Governance structures > B1. ICANN as institution, its political >oversight and reforms/changes in its structure > B2. Problem of trust anchor (signing the root) in DNSSEC > B3. Role of national governments cIr >governance; i.e., GAC, the Tunis Agenda "public >policy principles" > >C. Human Rights and cIr > C1. DNS Whois and privacy > C2. Freedom of expression and ICANN's new gTLD policy > >D. Security and cIr > D1. DNSSEC implementation > D2. Secure routing > >Now this list can no doubt be improved and/or expanded but it's a start. > >I note that topics A1, B2, B3, C2, and D1 are >all addressed in workshops. As Bertrand >suggests, a plenary session that chooses to >address any of these issues should draw to some >extent from workshop speakers.  > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 11:59:42 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:59:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: new Civil Society WG on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <20070911075036.GB28354@nic.fr> References: <200709110212.l8B2CWjv006566@merlin.enst.fr> <20070911075036.GB28354@nic.fr> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9CE0@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >> From our observations there is in this group a strong presence of >> the internet community, "internity" for short. > >As a fan of Isaac Asimov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov), >I support the use of this new word. See the novel "The end of >eternity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity) where a >secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >poiwerful technique :-) Internet community? How about "commintern" ? ;-) 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Tue Sep 11 12:23:31 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:23:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development References: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0333ACEF@proton.iisd.ca> Message-ID: <006b01c7f490$1fe7a050$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Tony Many thanks for your kind invitation. However, I'm very busy (even "overbooked") during this period, with the Regional Unesco Meeting (Europe and North America) where i'm involved since it takes place in Strasbourg (my living place) on next 13th and 14th, and the EurAfrica-ICT Initiative meeting in Brussels on September 27, which needs some preparation for me. Therefore it may be difficult for me to be an active participant at your conference. Moreover, my English may prove not fluent enough for contributing effectively to the debates (generally people use to speek very/too quickly there ...). Actually, the topic of the IISD conference is on top of my reflections, but these are more pragmatic than "academic". For me, and as far as development is concerned (e.g. Sub Saharian Africa, SSA), one of the most important concepts is synergy between diverse infrastractures such as transport (road and rail), energy (transport lines and grids), ICT (both telecom and TV infrastructures), water and sanitation networks (urban areas), pipelines, etc. Obvious synergy effects with ICT (i.a. carrying Internet) are also obtained through postal networks, where e-mail complements traditional mail if any. What's more, synergy is not only cost effective, it is also a cross-fertilizing means if it is taken in account accordingly and following a formalized methodology. Thus, synergy is in my opinion key for optimizing the relationship between ICT (domain where Internet Gouvernance is unavoidable) and development, which is obviously based on sustainable development in SSA. I think this close relationship and its induced synergy effets may be contributive to the second and maybe to the fifth of the conference topics. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack President of CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) Associated Researcher of CERIME (Universite Robert Schuman, Strasbourg) (www.cerime.u-strasbg.fr) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Vetter" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development >From September 17 to 28, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is hosting an e-conference to engage researchers, practitioners and policy analysts in an open discussion on the intersections between Internet governance and sustainable development. Your participation will help advance the debate. Please visit the following url for full details, http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, or read on for a brief summary. Sustainable development efforts cannot be conceived without global communications and knowledge exchange: therefore, the outcomes of the Internet governance debate will affect our ability to manage the social, environmental and economic factors of sustainable development. Beyond this fundamental link, numerous and diverse issue areas exist where the Internet governance and sustainable development policy communities could discover mutual challenges and learn from each others approaches to confronting them, setting the stage for future cooperation. Over the past year, in collaboration with partners and stakeholders, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposed to focus on five areas in which further exploration of potential links between these two communities could be anchored: - governance processes; - economic barriers to development; - the capacity of developing countries to participate in international governance; - access to local knowledge as a critical input to decision-making; and - indicators for development. By commissioning a pair of exploratory papers on each of these topics, IISD aimed to expand the links between these two communities of researchers and practitioners who have spent over three decades working in relative isolation from one another, creating gaps in vocabulary and culture. Each of these papers defines the issue area; describes its relevant governance structures and processes; identifies the main issues currently being debated; articulates actual and potential links between ICTs/Internet governance and sustainable development; and proposes areas for further study. The purpose of this e-conference is to give participants an opportunity to share their thoughts, comments, or questions regarding the content presented in these paper pairs. You are encouraged join this e-conference to engage other participant in a discussion of common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and how lessons from one side might inform progress on the other, in the context of each issue area. Copies of the papers can be downloaded at http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, and an email containing links to the papers will be sent when you confirm your subscription. ** HOW TO PARTICIPATE ** You can subscribe via the WWW. Please see: To participate via e-mail, here are the basic commands: SUBSCRIBING: Send a message to with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe igsd [your name] MODERATOR / LIST OWNER: If you have any questions about the list or problems with your subscription please contact the list owner at: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10648 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From tvetter at iisd.ca Tue Sep 11 12:44:47 2007 From: tvetter at iisd.ca (Tony Vetter) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:44:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development In-Reply-To: <006b01c7f490$1fe7a050$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> References: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0333ACEF@proton.iisd.ca> <006b01c7f490$1fe7a050$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Message-ID: <47AB1D483BC00940AC5DE54F9587ACAD0333AE12@proton.iisd.ca> Dear Jean-Louis, Thank you very much for your thoughts on our conference topic. I too am also interested in some of the more pragmatic issues that should be the attention of further investigation related to this topic. This will be the focus of some of my own research this fall so I appreciate you sharing your insights. Just for your information the conference is being conducted via e-mail using a listserve so there will be no verbal debate. If you are interested in monitoring the e-mail debates or potentially adding your own thoughts to the threads I invite you to join the listserve at the following link . Best Regards, Tony Vetter Project Officer, Knowledge Communications International Institute for Sustainable Development, Ottawa, Canada 1-613-288-2024 http://www.iisd.org -----Original Message----- From: jlfullsack [mailto:jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr] Sent: September 11, 2007 12:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tony Vetter Subject: Re: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development Dear Tony Many thanks for your kind invitation. However, I'm very busy (even "overbooked") during this period, with the Regional Unesco Meeting (Europe and North America) where i'm involved since it takes place in Strasbourg (my living place) on next 13th and 14th, and the EurAfrica-ICT Initiative meeting in Brussels on September 27, which needs some preparation for me. Therefore it may be difficult for me to be an active participant at your conference. Moreover, my English may prove not fluent enough for contributing effectively to the debates (generally people use to speek very/too quickly there ...). Actually, the topic of the IISD conference is on top of my reflections, but these are more pragmatic than "academic". For me, and as far as development is concerned (e.g. Sub Saharian Africa, SSA), one of the most important concepts is synergy between diverse infrastractures such as transport (road and rail), energy (transport lines and grids), ICT (both telecom and TV infrastructures), water and sanitation networks (urban areas), pipelines, etc. Obvious synergy effects with ICT (i.a. carrying Internet) are also obtained through postal networks, where e-mail complements traditional mail if any. What's more, synergy is not only cost effective, it is also a cross-fertilizing means if it is taken in account accordingly and following a formalized methodology. Thus, synergy is in my opinion key for optimizing the relationship between ICT (domain where Internet Gouvernance is unavoidable) and development, which is obviously based on sustainable development in SSA. I think this close relationship and its induced synergy effets may be contributive to the second and maybe to the fifth of the conference topics. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack President of CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) Associated Researcher of CERIME (Universite Robert Schuman, Strasbourg) (www.cerime.u-strasbg.fr) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Vetter" To: Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: [governance] Invitation to IISD E-conference on Internet Governance and Sustainable Development >From September 17 to 28, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is hosting an e-conference to engage researchers, practitioners and policy analysts in an open discussion on the intersections between Internet governance and sustainable development. Your participation will help advance the debate. Please visit the following url for full details, http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, or read on for a brief summary. Sustainable development efforts cannot be conceived without global communications and knowledge exchange: therefore, the outcomes of the Internet governance debate will affect our ability to manage the social, environmental and economic factors of sustainable development. Beyond this fundamental link, numerous and diverse issue areas exist where the Internet governance and sustainable development policy communities could discover mutual challenges and learn from each others approaches to confronting them, setting the stage for future cooperation. Over the past year, in collaboration with partners and stakeholders, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) proposed to focus on five areas in which further exploration of potential links between these two communities could be anchored: - governance processes; - economic barriers to development; - the capacity of developing countries to participate in international governance; - access to local knowledge as a critical input to decision-making; and - indicators for development. By commissioning a pair of exploratory papers on each of these topics, IISD aimed to expand the links between these two communities of researchers and practitioners who have spent over three decades working in relative isolation from one another, creating gaps in vocabulary and culture. Each of these papers defines the issue area; describes its relevant governance structures and processes; identifies the main issues currently being debated; articulates actual and potential links between ICTs/Internet governance and sustainable development; and proposes areas for further study. The purpose of this e-conference is to give participants an opportunity to share their thoughts, comments, or questions regarding the content presented in these paper pairs. You are encouraged join this e-conference to engage other participant in a discussion of common positions, mutual challenges and differences, and how lessons from one side might inform progress on the other, in the context of each issue area. Copies of the papers can be downloaded at http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/, and an email containing links to the papers will be sent when you confirm your subscription. ** HOW TO PARTICIPATE ** You can subscribe via the WWW. Please see: To participate via e-mail, here are the basic commands: SUBSCRIBING: Send a message to with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe igsd [your name] MODERATOR / LIST OWNER: If you have any questions about the list or problems with your subscription please contact the list owner at: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10648 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 11 16:38:10 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:38:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] ICANN ads for "general public" (new subject header) In-Reply-To: References: <46e139d1.1d1e640a.0de8.fffff114@mx.google.com> <46e1ab2d.161e640a.562b.6c0d@mx.google.com> Message-ID: At 12:19 PM +0900 9/11/07, Adam Peake wrote: >I'll pass your comments on to the NomCom's staff support and ask them >to keep for the 2008 committee chair. Thanks Adam, Just want to emphasize: this ought not get bottled up in just NomCom, as the principles here apply to any external advertising by ICANN at all, especially if there is a potential for ICANN to advertise to the general public to participate in public comment fora (which is how this sub-topic arose in the first place). Frankly, someone ought to talk to Paul Twomey to get ICANN to hire a marketing person in-house to coordinate all advertising strategy. Perhaps this will not immediately rise to the VP level, but the position ought to at least report to VP and have actionable authority to craft ad strategies coherently. Pro bono policy-making people do not generally have the expertise or resources to do this sort of thing properly. Support staff who are charged with answering to the policy people (i.e., are not given authority to make decisions that constitute policy making in and of itself) do not have enough authority to direct ad strategies. In short, unless defined explicitly in the staff hierarchy, there is no one steering the ship here, and it will likely stay adrift unless and until this paid professional position is established and appropriately empowered at ICANN. That is the crux of the problem: who has the authority and responsibility to make external advertising work at ICANN? My comments are merely about manifestations of that root problem, as if I had the hypothetical authority to direct such a process myself, for example. But if there is no one designated to make it happen, it will not happen even if some people in the general vicinity know how to make it happen. So I hope NomCom support staff will pass this stuff along more generally among ICANN staff, perhaps in digested form (in principle rather than the detailed case study, which could be reshaped as an appendix perhaps). If the staff structure is not explicitly corrected, then similar outcomes are extremely likely moving forward. Best, 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 muguet at mdpi.net Tue Sep 11 18:48:32 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:48:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance Message-ID: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Dear Milton and Stephane > >> a >> secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >> poiwerful technique :-) >> > > Internet community? > How about "commintern" ? ;-) > Real cool ! 8-) They are comrades of another type... yes indeed *Comintern* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Comintern* this time with 2 m..., I guess the extra m stands for money.. :-$ Now lets get the HTML version of the announcement Lets hope that the ongoing ridicule proxy game will soon be over, and that the Tunis agenda is going to start to get implemented... in good faith... if it ever existed within the commintern .... If you are fed up with the comrades, join the resistance... Best Francis --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * *WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance * *http://www.wsis-gov.org* Within the overall framework of the implementation of the recommendations of the *World Summit on the Information Society* , it appears that political and ethical standards demand the formation of a Civil Society working group. The "Civil Society" must be clarified as a group of people sharing such core values as openness, transparency, public interest, diversity, inclusion and a sincere concern for sustainable development, in bridging the digital divide. "Civil Society" shall not be defined "subtractively" as a group of people who neither belong to the government nor business sectors. In this view, "Civil Society" must be differentiated from the "Internet Community", which is increasingly dominated by the technico-industrial complex that manages critical internet resources. The working group is going to deal with all governance issues related to all information networks, which include not only *Internet Governance*, but also governance of *Telecommunication networks* and especially *Next Generation Networks* . This site *Wsis-Gov.org* is now the site of the * WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance*. Linguistic Diversity, either with the help of different page versions, or with embedded automatic translation is fully acknowledged, with linkage with the *Dynamic Coalition on Linguistic Diversity* . * Monday 03 September 2007*. The formal announcement ( speech ) of the group formation was made by its founding president : Louis Pouzin , during the IGF Open Consultations on Monday 3 September 2007, at the Palais des Nations, in Geneva. // Thank you Mr Chairman, I wish to use this opportunity to announce the creation of a new working group in the Civil Society. This group is called Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance. Why create another working group on Internet governance? Indeed, there is already a group called Internet Governance Caucus. From our observations there is in this group a strong presence of the Internet community, "Internity" for short. They have ties with some governments, with the business sector, with NGO's, and with the domain name milk cow. Quite a few people in the Civil Society do not share these interests. As a result there is no majority for a consensus on significant reforms of internet governance. It appears that it would be better to draw clearer lines, let the internet community lobby for its own turf, and have a Civil Society Working Group with a distinct agenda. What agenda ? To identify, and promote enablers of societal development, taking full account of existing diversities, e.g. culture, language, geography, political system, etc. To adjust governance structures to people's needs, rather than the opposite. In short, implement the Tunis Agenda. What structures do we propose ? This working group is now created, as of 3rd September 2007. It is international. A chairman, or coordinator, whatever term the group prefers, is rotated every 6th month. The 1st one is myself. The group is multilingual, starting with English, French, Spanish, and other languages when it becomes practicable. There shall be an ethics committee, in charge of evaluating potential conflicts of interests. Additional mechanisms are needed, e.g. for nominations, votes, events, etc. They will be defined by the group. Participation is open to everyone abiding by the group rules, and not involved with the internet community. A discussion list is open. Anyone may subscribe. People interested may join in now. Thank you. // * Wednesday 12 September 2007*. Opening of discussions on the **Mailing List* * *On the agenda of next discussions on the list :*: /Urgent/ : proposal of panelists for the main sessions. Comments on the Advisory Group Report Opacity and rule of silence ? Betrayal of the mandate : No recommendations in the emerging issues session ? Coalition reports and outcomes under control ? Silence, no rotation here ? Shall the human rights commission be contacted ? Is an audit of the secretariat needed ? The May 2007 C5 Cybersecurity action line meeting : a setback for the ITU ? Financial support for LDC IGF participants, a still born coalition ? Search for a long term solution Coalitions that do not seek to get IGF outcomes and recommendations ? phony groups or tools of diversion ? The choice between lobbies' anarchy and a new multi-stakeholder legal regime ? Identification of obstacles to the implementation of the Tunis Agenda mandate Means to empower local Civil Society groups / /: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 32341 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 Tue Sep 11 20:39:15 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:39:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity Message-ID: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in Africa: The dark continent. See http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African littoral." Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power consumption grows faster than their economies." There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave the ongoing development of ICT? For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana’s internet growth slowed by high cost. See http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. Anyway, something to think about. Cheers 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 03:58:14 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:58:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0709120058q63df07bekfffd06f59eb2e09c@mail.gmail.com> Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of Internet access is a On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères / French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 04:11:19 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:11:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0709120111n506efc9dvb234260087043bbd@mail.gmail.com> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 05:25:05 2007 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:25:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Papers by Everton Lucero Message-ID: <954259bd0709120225y3760e672o6b4aef07fd993417@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I just want to call your attention to two documents (attached below) that have been presented by Everton Lucero (from th Brazilian Government), in his new capacity as special advisor to the brazilian co-Chair of the MAG. As far as I understand, this is therefore not a formal presentation by the Brazilian Government. One paper deals with the MAG, its role, composition and procedures. the other one is about the Rio meeting itself and what is expected of it. The papers were introduced at the end of the MAG meeting, which did not allow the MAG to discuss it. The papers are public, through two links at the end of the secretariat report on the MAG meeting last week in Geneva that has recently been posted on the IGF site. As the links were hard to open on my computer, and many of you may not have seen the reference to these documents, I thought it would be useful to call attention to them. It is an important input to take into account in the discussion within IGC on these issues. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Lucero.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Lucero 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27136 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 12 05:26:18 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:26:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity Message-ID: <178212.86231.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Bertrand, My point was more that with the lack of access to electricity, there will be major impediments to accessing the internet in developing countries such as across much of Africa. There have been other articles on access by people in developing countries, and there is evidence that many (definitely not most) people are accessing the internet through handheld devices such as smartphones. And the reasons are varied, but even to know when to send produce to markets so they get the best prices. As you mentioned, this is also being done through mobile phone telephony. There are some articles on my website at http://technewsreview.com.au/cat.php?cat=12 on this. As for your question: "If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries?", at a guess, my reply would be yes. These issues would be something that should be on the agenda for Rio. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Bertrand de La Chapelle To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Wednesday, 12 September, 2007 6:11:19 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: Hi all, I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in Africa: The dark continent. See http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African littoral." Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power consumption grows faster than their economies." There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave the ongoing development of ICT? For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp . The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. Anyway, something to think about. Cheers 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 12 09:17:15 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:17:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Papers by Everton Lucero In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709120225y3760e672o6b4aef07fd993417@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0709120225y3760e672o6b4aef07fd993417@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, thanks for mentioning this. At 11:25 AM +0200 9/12/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear all, > >I just want to call your attention to two >documents (attached below) that have been >presented by Everton Lucero (from th Brazilian >Government), in his new capacity as special >advisor to the brazilian co-Chair of the MAG. > >As far as I understand, this is therefore not a >formal presentation by the Brazilian Government. >One paper deals with the MAG, its role, >composition and procedures. the other one is >about the Rio meeting itself and what is >expected of it. > >The papers were introduced at the end of the MAG >meeting, which did not allow the MAG to discuss >it. And many members had already left by the time the papers were introduced. I've been told the reaction of most MAG members who were left was not positive. I wasn't at the meeting on Wednesday so missed all the fun. >The papers are public, through two links at the >end of the secretariat report on the MAG meeting >last week in Geneva that has recently been >posted on the IGF site. As the links were hard >to open on my computer, and many of you may not >have seen the reference to these documents, I >thought it would be useful to call attention to >them. > >It is an important input to take into account in >the discussion within IGC on these issues. I understand other stakeholders will be submitting responses, either individually or as stakeholder groups. Expect some will be public some perhaps only to the MAG list. I already sent comments, and copied them to the caucus list (copied again below), I think it would be helpful if we began to think about a response to the issues Everton raises. I feel very uncomfortable with these papers being published as part of the MAG output -- departure from normal process, and I imagine they must be causing some confusion with people perhaps wondering if they reflect some opinion of the advisory group or not. To be clear, they were not agreed by the advisory group, to the best of my knowledge do not reflect anyone's thinking except Everton's and perhaps the govt of Brazil (would expect Mr. Vianna, the new co-chair, to agree to anything one of his advisors publishes?) Thanks, Adam At 2:38 AM +0900 9/7/07, Adam Peake wrote: > >I wasn't able to attend the the 2nd day of the >MAG meeting when Everton submitted these papers, >I do not know how they were discussed or why >they were accepted by the group, seems a bit >unusual. I saw the papers last night when I got >off a flight from Geneva to Boston and sent a >rough reaction (i.e. not very well thought out >:-) to the MAG list. My comments on Everton's >paper below. > >Best, > >Adam > > > >At 10:37 AM +0900 9/6/07, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>Dear Everton, colleagues: >> >>I am tired after travelling from Geneva to the >>US, but here are some initial comments on the >>paper "Elements to be considered for structuring >>the IGF ". >> >>I'm quoting the relevant text from the paper followed by my comment: >> >>"The AG should act as a supporting mechanism to >>the organization, procedure and conduct of >>business at the IGF; " >> >>comment: I believe the AG should be responsible >>for implementing the suggestions/recommendations >>of all stakeholders as expressed in public >>consultations (meetings and other calls for >>contributions etc.) regarding the organization, >>procedure and conduct of business of the IGF on >>an ongoing basis. I don't understand what >>"supporting mechanism" means. Saying "at the IGF" >>suggests to me that we would be discussing an >>annual meeting and meeting only, not a process. I >>think we should consider the IGF an ongoing >>process of dialogue. 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. >> >> >>"The AG should have no more than _____ members" >> >>comment: Ideally the number should be quite >>small, but I think diversity requirements will >>force the AG to remain around the current number. >>48 is divisible by four. >> >> >>"AG members should be appointed by and are >>accountable to their respective stakeholder >>group;" >> >>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. >> >> >>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their >>representatives to the AG according to its own >>procedure, which should be transparent, >>democratic and inclusive; " >> >>comment: How many? Should the four groups appoint >>equal numbers? If not why not? (Noting government >>members are the largest grouping in the current >>arrangement.) >> >>As I think was mentioned during the open >>consultation on Monday, a problem with this >>suggestion is there is no way to achieve overall >>balance of the AG if each group appoints members >>independently. We need diversity of geography, >>gender, and expertise (by expertise I mean in >>terms of subject and also in the sub-sectors of >>our respective stakeholder groups.) >> >> >>"Balanced regional representation should be >>observed by each stakeholder group, when rotating >>its representatives;" >> >>comment: Regional representation is not the only >>factor. Members need to have different subject >>matter expertise: for example some of us know >>more about access (issues and people) and others >>more about critical Internet resources. >>Membership needs to be finely balanced across all >>stakeholder groups. >> >> >>"Gender balance should be sought." >> >>comment: Suggest that in the spirit of the WSIS >>documents and accepted good practise, Gender >>balance should be required. An expert on Gender >>and ICT would be a welcome addition to the >>chair's advisor group(s), the Brazilian groups >>seems particularly male :-) >> >> >>"The AG should be co-chaired by one >>representative appointed by the UN >>Secretary-General and one representative >>appointed by the host country;" >> >>comment: I think the role of the host country >>representative co-chair to be defined, why it is >>necessary explained (I mean no disrespect to Mr. >>Vianna, but as we have discussed the importance >>of transparency it seems a good idea to explain >>this important change.) The Secretary-General's >>appointee would logically be responsible for >>overall convening of the meeting, while it would >>make sense for the local host appointee to be >>oriented to logistical matters. I do not mean to >>suggest a strict division of labor, but a >>tendency. >> >> >>"At the invitation of the AG, non-members should >>participate at AG meetings as observers;" >> >>comment: How will this be achieved? Consensus of >>all AG members? A vote (two third agreement?) If >>a way to implement this suggestion can be agreed >>then it would need to be done well in advance so >>people are able to plan travel to the meetings so >>as not to disadvantage those who are not based >>locally (i.e. stakeholders from developing >>nations in particular.) >> >> >>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;" >> >>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this. >> >>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions." >> >>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. >> >>Hope this helps, and apologies for this rather rushed response to the paper. >> >>I will try to send comments on the other paper "A >>³package² deal for Rio" later. But one >>observation on "substance" is to note the >>increased emphasis on Access, and discussion of >>critical Internet resources consistent with WSIS >>principles seems a departure from where I thought >>we were headed with the session? And I don't >>remember we agreed on a session on the future of >>the IGF structure etc, though the civil society >>Internet Governance Caucus is leading >>organization of a workshop on the IGF mandate and >>would like to see some discussion on this in a >>main session. >> >>Best, >> >>Adam >> > >Best > >Bertrand > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 12 09:33:23 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:33:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Message-ID: Francis, hi. At 12:48 AM +0200 9/12/07, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: >Dear Milton and Stephane >> >>> a >>>secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >>>poiwerful technique :-) >>> >> >>Internet community? >>How about "commintern" ? ;-) >Real cool ! 8-) >They are comrades of another type... yes indeed >*Comintern* >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Comintern* >this time with 2 m..., I guess the extra m stands for money.. :-$ You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are in the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk cow". It's a little insulting. But typical. Could you tell us who supports your participation in IGF consultations, and IGF in Athens and Rio? How do you fund your many WSIS and IGF projects, websites etc? With allegations being made it's worth stating: My participation in IGF is supported by my employer, GLOCOM (non profit, university associated research institute) and from personal resources (I have occasionally covered my own travel and other expenses.) No government, business or Internet governance organization (e.g. ICANN, a ccTLD, domain name registry or registrar) provides financial or other support my participation in IGF. I receive no personal consulting fees or other payments, cash or in kind, for any work I do regarding IGF. 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 12 09:35:54 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:35:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <954259bd0709120111n506efc9dvb234260087043bbd@mail.gmail.com> References: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <954259bd0709120111n506efc9dvb234260087043bbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B51F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? No, because of the rapid pace of digital convergence it means that the Internet will come to them via handhelds. 3G and 4G bandwidths, WiMax and various Asian standards that compete with the (WiBro is the Korean one, and the Chinese standard whose name I can’t remember). What this does mean is that radio spectrum management policies in Africa and other developing countries become critical aspects of the internet access debate. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 5:46 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 12 09:59:31 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:59:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B520@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Hey, all, I suggest we not go down this road of recrimination. I am sure that the "money" comment was not directed at you personally, Adam. If Francis and Louis feel blocked or frustrated by the presence of "internity" folks then it's fine for them to set up their own group. I think it's important, however, to remain engaged with the business and technical communities, no matter how irritating they can be sometimes, so I won't be joining any new groups and I won't be abandoning this one. Also as a critic of many aspects of the Tunis Agenda I could not take that mission as my touchstone. As for the Comintern label, well I just couldn't resist a good pun. Call it a character flaw. > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:33 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dr. Francis MUGUET > Cc: pouzin at well.com > Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on > Information Networks Governance > > You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are > in the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk > cow". It's a little insulting. But typical. > No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: 9/12/2007 10:56 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 12 10:10:51 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:10:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Taxing the Internet F.Y.I. (USA related) Message-ID: Taxing the Internet (USA related) By C-SPAN - The Communicators David Quam, National Governors Association, Director of the Office of Federal Relations and Broderick Johnson, "Don't Tax Our Web," discuss the likelihood of an Internet access tax levied by states and localities. Hear WebCast: http://download.rbn.com/cspan/cspan/download/podaudio/com090807_quam.mp3 -- If their talking about it, its coming [a Tax]... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 12 10:03:23 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:03:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B51F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <954259bd0709120111n506efc9dvb234260087043bbd@mail.gmail.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B51F@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B522@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> _____ From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] What this does mean is that radio spectrum management policies in Africa and other developing countries become critical aspects of the internet access debate. Addendum: and of course David G. is right on that you can’t even think about WiMax, WiFi or whatever until you have a functioning, reliable power grid. I have always argued that ICT development is driven by broader, systemic economic development and cannot be considered in isolation. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 5:46 PM No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1002 - Release Date: 9/11/2007 5:46 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.15/1003 - Release Date: 9/12/2007 10:56 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Sep 12 10:06:52 2007 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:06:52 +0200 (MEST) Subject: [governance] new Civil Society WG on Information Networks Governance Message-ID: <200709121406.l8CE6q0q022231@merlin.enst.fr> >>Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote >>As a fan of Isaac Asimov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov), >>I support the use of this new word. See the novel "The end of >>eternity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Eternity) where a >>secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >>poiwerful technique :-) On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:59:42 -0400, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>Internet community? >How about "commintern" ? ;-)=20 Magic. Let's keep it as an alias. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 12 10:22:15 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:22:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity Message-ID: Bertrand, David, Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of technological and business model alternatives being explored within Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop Per Child. So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 12 10:26:20 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:26:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance Message-ID: Adam, You got to do better at milking some cow or you'll go broke! ; ) 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 9/12/2007 9:33 AM >>> Francis, hi. At 12:48 AM +0200 9/12/07, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: >Dear Milton and Stephane >> >>> a >>>secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >>>poiwerful technique :-) >>> >> >>Internet community? >>How about "commintern" ? ;-) >Real cool ! 8-) >They are comrades of another type... yes indeed >*Comintern* >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Comintern* >this time with 2 m..., I guess the extra m stands for money.. :-$ You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are in the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk cow". It's a little insulting. But typical. Could you tell us who supports your participation in IGF consultations, and IGF in Athens and Rio? How do you fund your many WSIS and IGF projects, websites etc? With allegations being made it's worth stating: My participation in IGF is supported by my employer, GLOCOM (non profit, university associated research institute) and from personal resources (I have occasionally covered my own travel and other expenses.) No government, business or Internet governance organization (e.g. ICANN, a ccTLD, domain name registry or registrar) provides financial or other support my participation in IGF. I receive no personal consulting fees or other payments, cash or in kind, for any work I do regarding IGF. 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 avri at psg.com Wed Sep 12 11:02:03 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:02:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <00B578AC-24EE-4149-B877-306E7CA96BC4@psg.com> On 12 sep 2007, at 09.33, Adam Peake wrote: > You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us > are in the pay of some government, business or the "domain name > milk cow". It's a little insulting. But typical. it is not only being in the employ of one of these organizations that disqualifies someone for membership. even being a volunteer in an internet based organization like, IETF, ICANN, ARIN etc., is enough, as i understand it. though if one is only a member of ISOC, that may be ok, as I understand it. but it would be good to understand the qualities that mark one as unqualified. i assume there are some objective criteria, and since the new association was announced here, it would be good to understand the membership litmus test clearly. another question i have, is whether those of us who are unredeemably tainted, as i assume i am, can join the mailing list? thanks a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 12 11:21:34 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:21:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B520@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9A0B520@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <55BCD41C-96D2-486A-AD74-1953C5660698@psg.com> On 12 sep 2007, at 09.59, Milton L Mueller wrote: > so I won't be joining any new groups and I won't be abandoning this > one. oh, i am not planning to leave this one either, as this group has a history, an openness, and a persistence that i believe is important to maintain and encourage - no matter how much i may despair at various moments. but since the new group may have some interesting points to make from their radical position, i would certainly add them to the many mailing lists i monitor - if so allowed. a. btw, i think both "internity" and "commintern" are both cute. i just adore neologisms. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From toml at communisphere.com Wed Sep 12 12:01:30 2007 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:01:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ethics and Disclosure by Lessig References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> <00B578AC-24EE-4149-B877-306E7CA96BC4@psg.com> Message-ID: <1ed401c7f556$2fb2fb80$6801a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> As one who reads this list I suspect one of those storms about who has horns and halos is again approaching. Before moving too far into it, I recommend reading Larry Lessig's take on disclosure at http://lessig.org/blog/2007/06/disclosure_statement_and_state.html and his personal statement there on "How I Make My Money." He presents a very high standard. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" To: "Governance Caucus" Cc: "Dr. Francis MUGUET" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance > > On 12 sep 2007, at 09.33, Adam Peake wrote: > >> You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are in >> the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk cow". >> It's a little insulting. But typical. > > it is not only being in the employ of one of these organizations that > disqualifies someone for membership. > even being a volunteer in an internet based organization like, IETF, > ICANN, ARIN etc., is enough, as i understand it. > though if one is only a member of ISOC, that may be ok, as I understand > it. but it would be good to understand the qualities that mark one as > unqualified. i assume there are some objective criteria, and since the > new association was announced here, it would be good to understand the > membership litmus test clearly. > > another question i have, is whether those of us who are unredeemably > tainted, as i assume i am, can join the mailing list? > > thanks > > 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 kierenmccarthy at gmail.com Wed Sep 12 12:29:51 2007 From: kierenmccarthy at gmail.com (Kieren McCarthy) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:29:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ethics and Disclosure by Lessig In-Reply-To: <1ed401c7f556$2fb2fb80$6801a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> <00B578AC-24EE-4149-B877-306E7CA96BC4@psg.com> <1ed401c7f556$2fb2fb80$6801a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <013a01c7f55a$261c2930$8800a8c0@TEST55C9A4E356> This is the perfectly wrong time to start talking about ICANN, so I will. The latest issue of the ICANN magazine, covering what the organisation did last month and is doing this month is out. You can see it and sign up for it at: http://www.icann.org/magazine/ I should also be releasing a lengthy document - hopefully by the end of the week - I've compiled about each policy aspect split according to what happened at the San Juan meeting, what will happen in LA at the end of October, and what will happen in between. If you sign up to the magazine, you will get that as well - although it is best to sign up for "meeting-updates" on the sign-up form if you want to get the next one (as well as updates before, during and after the LA meeting). ----------------------- Very importantly, I would be delighted if people would take part in a very quick six-question survey about ICANN and information. This is your chance to say what you want more information on and how you want it. If you have ever complained about the information ICANN provides and in what format, then this is your chance to change the way it works. It will take less than five minutes, it is very easy to fill in, so please click the link below: https://www.bigpulse.com/916i ----------------------- Getting to the issue of the IGF: in the magazine, there is an interview with ICANN CEO Paul Twomey (that I did) and the last question covers the IGF. Here is the excerpt: ------------------------- KM: One of the big events just after the Los Angeles meeting in November is the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio where the topic of 'critical Internet resources' is going to be discussed. What role do you see ICANN playing at that meeting? PT: I think the fact that critical Internet resources are one of the agenda topics is a good thing. Very importantly, though, the function ICANN does is only a small part of what critical Net resources are, and I think it's important - especially for developing countries - that that discussion also has to be about critical infrastructure and application-layer stuff as well as simply the domain name system and IP addressing. PT: But nevertheless, in terms of DNS and IP addressing, I think that ICANN, the Regional Internet Registries and others have a great story to tell, and we're proud to go out and tell that story: what we do; how multi-party stakeholder models work; the increasing number of country codes and governments that have been involved in our work; the way in which the policy procedures work; the further internationalization of ICANN as an international non-profit organization: I think those are all good news stories, so we'll be confident and happy to go forward and have that discussion. [ends] ------------------------- While we're doing disclosures: * ICANN pays me as a consultant in my position as general manager of public participation, although this will change to employee status when I move to Los Angeles, most likely in October. * I am a freelance journalist covering, well, whatever I want, but mostly Internet issues and mostly in the UK press. I don't get much income from this at the moment as ICANN eats up all my time. * I run a highly readable and interesting, bordering on fascinating blog at http://kierenmccarthy.co.uk but I haven't stuck any ads on it as yet. Although I should because I get a lot of traffic (just under 20,000 pages a day). * I wish I was making more money off my book Sex.com - which is a fascinating read and everyone on this list should buy a copy from Amazon.co.uk (http://sexdotcom.info/about/buy.htm). I have yet to get a royalty cheque and the advance was gone before it arrived. There is a website which I run covering the whole thing at: http://sexdotcom.info/. * I won £5 on the fruit machine in the Grapes of Wrath in Oxford last week. -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 5:02 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Subject: [governance] Ethics and Disclosure by Lessig As one who reads this list I suspect one of those storms about who has horns and halos is again approaching. Before moving too far into it, I recommend reading Larry Lessig's take on disclosure at http://lessig.org/blog/2007/06/disclosure_statement_and_state.html and his personal statement there on "How I Make My Money." He presents a very high standard. Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avri Doria" To: "Governance Caucus" Cc: "Dr. Francis MUGUET" ; Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance > > On 12 sep 2007, at 09.33, Adam Peake wrote: > >> You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are in >> the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk cow". >> It's a little insulting. But typical. > > it is not only being in the employ of one of these organizations that > disqualifies someone for membership. > even being a volunteer in an internet based organization like, IETF, > ICANN, ARIN etc., is enough, as i understand it. > though if one is only a member of ISOC, that may be ok, as I understand > it. but it would be good to understand the qualities that mark one as > unqualified. i assume there are some objective criteria, and since the > new association was announced here, it would be good to understand the > membership litmus test clearly. > > another question i have, is whether those of us who are unredeemably > tainted, as i assume i am, can join the mailing list? > > thanks > > a. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From marzouki at ras.eu.org Wed Sep 12 12:43:26 2007 From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:43:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <98416AEF-8476-4D29-AD2F-65878C0481F7@ras.eu.org> Hi, I confess I asked to be subscribed to this new mailing list, "pour voir" as we say in French (to see what happens), as a start. I also confess that I must have passed the (unclear) test, as I've been subscribed:) However, Le 12 sept. 07 à 00:48, Dr. Francis MUGUET a écrit : (Excerpt from www.wsis-gov.org homepage) > Within the overall framework of the implementation of the > recommendations of the World Summit on the Information Society, it > appears that political and ethical standards demand the formation > of a Civil Society working group. The "Civil Society" must be > clarified as a group of people sharing such core values as > openness, transparency, public interest, diversity, inclusion and a > sincere concern for sustainable development, in bridging the > digital divide. I'm always puzzled by such assumption and such understanding. We all know that "civil society" is a rather fuzzy notion, but why on earth this so-called civil society should (1) be homogeneous and (2) show such particular values? Are they inherent to civil society? Is civil society intrinsically "good"? Has history shown, since first references to the civil society concept, any indication that this is actually true? What you are tentatively defining - in the IGF context - is not the "civil society". It's rather a subset of people and groups and - why not - institutions that are like-minded, sharing this particular values, i.e. a given vision in this context. In that sense, I agree with this being the necessary pre-condition to form a caucus in the true meaning of the word, as this IGC list is more like a plenary list for interested parties in IG issues, the great majority of them belonging to CS, but not necessarily sharing a common vision of these issues. Note that forming a caucus in this sense doesn't prevent to discuss with others, from civil society or from other segments. Thus, apart from its accompanying unappropriate comments and insinuations, the creation of this new list is a good initiative in my opinion, but let's see what happens and how it turns out. Even with the best intentions, it's always difficult anyway to get a spin- off list started and working well. Also, in terms of substance, sharing the values you indicated above doesn't mean considering the Tunis Agenda as the holy bible (speaking of cultural diversity, feel free to replace bible by your favorite document, and holy by your favorite adjective:)). And doesn't mean either sharing Louis and Francis' views on multistakeholderism, bureau or whatever structure. Finally, it's obvious for me that the new list - and maybe other to be created later - could only be a specific complement of the general, plenary IG list, which remains this IGC list. There is certainly no mutually exclusive choice to be made here. > "Civil Society" shall not be defined “subtractively” as a group of > people who neither belong to the government nor business sectors. I don't see any other common understanding of it. This is precisely the reason why this multistakeholderism means nothing and is currently rather working towards softening, when not silencing, dissenting voices. > In this view, "Civil Society" must be differentiated from the > "Internet Community", which is increasingly dominated by the > technico-industrial complex that manages critical internet resources. The "Internet Community" is not the only one in this case.. And, BTW, the actual differentiation between "civil society" and "Internet community" has rather served, as for now, the interest of the "internet community". Best, Meryem ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 12 19:39:16 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:39:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <46E878A4.8000009@rits.org.br> We have seen this movie before in this list, dear Adam, and this type of exchange did not contribute to the quality of our debates. Both the initial, supposedly funny comments, and your reaction. This is not a space of newbies, we all know each other, no point in restarting this kind of thread. frt rgds --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > Francis, hi. > > > At 12:48 AM +0200 9/12/07, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote: >> Dear Milton and Stephane >>> >>>> a >>>> secret group, the Eternity, rules the world through their mastery of a >>>> poiwerful technique :-) >>>> >>> >>> Internet community? >>> How about "commintern" ? ;-) >> Real cool ! 8-) >> They are comrades of another type... yes indeed >> *Comintern* >> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*Comintern* >> this time with 2 m..., I guess the extra m stands for money.. :-$ > > > You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are in > the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk cow". > It's a little insulting. But typical. > > Could you tell us who supports your participation in IGF consultations, > and IGF in Athens and Rio? How do you fund your many WSIS and IGF > projects, websites etc? > > With allegations being made it's worth stating: > > My participation in IGF is supported by my employer, GLOCOM (non profit, > university associated research institute) and from personal resources (I > have occasionally covered my own travel and other expenses.) No > government, business or Internet governance organization (e.g. ICANN, a > ccTLD, domain name registry or registrar) provides financial or other > support my participation in IGF. I receive no personal consulting fees > or other payments, cash or in kind, for any work I do regarding IGF. > > 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 > > > -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 13 05:53:31 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:53:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APCNews] New APC book on WSIS: Time for lessons learned Message-ID: Expect this will be of interest to quite a few. Adam >Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:53:55 -0300 >From: Analia Lavin >Subject: [APCNews] New APC book on WSIS: Time for lessons learned > >APC launches new book on WSIS, developing countries and civil >society: Time for lessons learned > >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202187 > >MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, September 12 2007 -- The World Summit on the >Information Society (WSIS) has been roundly criticised in the past >and this new study from APC concludes that the summit "is not the >best starting point for new action." So, what is the point of >looking at how developing country delegations and civil society >fared at the summit? Because, says the author "it is always >important to learn from experience -- particularly where it did not >deliver up to expectations." >The book "Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing >countries and civil society at the World Summit on the Information >Society", commissioned by APC and written by David Souter draws on >participants' observations, detailed interviews with forty key >actors and case studies of experiences rooted in five developing >countries. > >WSIS holds many lessons for developing countries and civil society >organisations aiming to exert greater influence in international ICT >decision-making fora. Some lessons demonstrate what worked well -- >such as the highly successful, multi-stakeholder Internet Governance >Forum (IGF). The majority illustrate what did not work so well -- >not least, holding a four-year long meeting on such a fast-changing >topic. >Read a one-page introduction: >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202193 > >Interview with "Whose Summit? Whose Information Society?" author >David Souter to discuss the study's findings, as well as what >lessons can be gathered from the WSIS experience -- for developing >countries, civil society, and in general by APCNews: >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202194 > >Download the full book here [in English; pdf format]: >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf > >Download the abridged versions (part of APC's Issue Papers series) >in English, Spanish and French: > >In English >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_EN.pdf >In Spanish >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_ES.pdf >In French >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_FR.pdf > >Five case studies of experience in five developing countries were >commissioned for the main report: > >Bangladesh case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_bangladesh.pdf >Ecuador case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_ecuador.pdf >Ethiopia case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_ethiopia.pdf >India case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf >Kenya case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_kenya.pdf > >_______________________________________________ >APCNews mailing list >APCNews at lists.apc.org >http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apcnews ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From puna_gb at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 06:09:18 2007 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao. Mosweu) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:09:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APCNews] New APC book on WSIS: Time for lessons learned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <996829.11480.qm@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Adam! Being from Botswana, In Africa, a country classified as a developing country, i believe this will make for interesting reading. Regards, Gao Adam Peake wrote: Expect this will be of interest to quite a few. Adam >Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:53:55 -0300 >From: Analia Lavin >Subject: [APCNews] New APC book on WSIS: Time for lessons learned > >APC launches new book on WSIS, developing countries and civil >society: Time for lessons learned > >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202187 > >MONTEVIDEO, URUGUAY, September 12 2007 -- The World Summit on the >Information Society (WSIS) has been roundly criticised in the past >and this new study from APC concludes that the summit "is not the >best starting point for new action." So, what is the point of >looking at how developing country delegations and civil society >fared at the summit? Because, says the author "it is always >important to learn from experience -- particularly where it did not >deliver up to expectations." >The book "Whose Summit? Whose Information Society? Developing >countries and civil society at the World Summit on the Information >Society", commissioned by APC and written by David Souter draws on >participants' observations, detailed interviews with forty key >actors and case studies of experiences rooted in five developing >countries. > >WSIS holds many lessons for developing countries and civil society >organisations aiming to exert greater influence in international ICT >decision-making fora. Some lessons demonstrate what worked well -- >such as the highly successful, multi-stakeholder Internet Governance >Forum (IGF). The majority illustrate what did not work so well -- >not least, holding a four-year long meeting on such a fast-changing >topic. >Read a one-page introduction: >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202193 > >Interview with "Whose Summit? Whose Information Society?" author >David Souter to discuss the study's findings, as well as what >lessons can be gathered from the WSIS experience -- for developing >countries, civil society, and in general by APCNews: >http://www.apc.org/english/news/index.shtml?x=5202194 > >Download the full book here [in English; pdf format]: >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_EN.pdf > >Download the abridged versions (part of APC's Issue Papers series) >in English, Spanish and French: > >In English >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_EN.pdf >In Spanish >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_ES.pdf >In French >http://rights.apc.org/documents/whose_summit_FR.pdf > >Five case studies of experience in five developing countries were >commissioned for the main report: > >Bangladesh case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_bangladesh.pdf >Ecuador case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_ecuador.pdf >Ethiopia case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_ethiopia.pdf >India case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_india.pdf >Kenya case study >http://rights.apc.org/documents/wsis_kenya.pdf > >_______________________________________________ >APCNews mailing list >APCNews at lists.apc.org >http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apcnews ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 12:18:04 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 09:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi Folks I am reading through the thread here and I am smiling. The issues being raised here, we have raised them a million times. But I still believe that experience is the best teacher. Analysts can say what they want, but living in the situation is worth a million analyses. Two weeks ago, I was in 5 town in Burkina Faso to do an evaluation of the pilot projects that the Digital Solidarity Fund is supporting. In truth, electricity alone is not the only problem. But problems are not the only things that I saw. I also saw hope, optimism and a strong will power to rise beyond problems. There are options - Satelite is one of them. Solar power is one of them. Community access points too. In a far away village called Ouahigouya - the DSF has provided a Satellite Internet connection. In that center alone, the Internet is being offered to the public. They have video conferencing equipment and telemedicine is a reality. I was surprised that the cybercafé ran on Open Source Software and that local people are well adapted to it. In that same town, I slept in a hotel that was using solar panels for power. I am not speaking about what can happen. I am saying what has already happened. Cheers Nnenna Lee McKnight wrote: Bertrand, David, Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of technological and business model alternatives being explored within Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop Per Child. So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -------------- 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 Fri Sep 14 01:57:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:27:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi All For some reasons the process of nominating speakers from IGC to IGF is not working. And I wonder what is it that I could have done better. Suggestions are welcome. I enclose my email dated this Monday, where I had requested for nominations for speakers (including self-nomination). I had mentioned a couple of guiding conditions, and also had asked for 2-4 lines of justification why these speakers should be nominated (1) generally and (2) specifically by the IGC. I will add something I failed to mention in the aforesaid mail. Please also indicate the session for which the speaker is being recommended. It appears that the IGF secretariat may be open to consider names even after the indicated end-date which passed yesterday, esp if it comes from an entity like the IGC. But we need to hurry up. I propose to close taking in names by end of tomorrow ie 15th. By tomorrow Vittorio and I will try to come out of a small noncom, which will decide by the stated criteria mostly regarding balance of views and other balances, and submit names on the behalf of the IGC by 17th day end. To get our nominated speakers in IGF session is important both from a 'substantive' viewpoint, as from process viewpoint in terms of keeping our stakeholder-ship in the whole IGF process alive and kicking. So I request everyone to treat this as a matter of urgent importance. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Parminder" Subject: [governance] speakers for IGF Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:09:37 +0530 Size: 33047 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 14 02:27:18 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:57:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> This is to clarify that this call is ONLY for nomination to main sessions at the IGF - the four sessions on CIRs, access, diversity, and openness, plus one on emerging issues. The call is not for speakers for the workshops. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF Hi All For some reasons the process of nominating speakers from IGC to IGF is not working. And I wonder what is it that I could have done better. Suggestions are welcome. I enclose my email dated this Monday, where I had requested for nominations for speakers (including self-nomination). I had mentioned a couple of guiding conditions, and also had asked for 2-4 lines of justification why these speakers should be nominated (1) generally and (2) specifically by the IGC. I will add something I failed to mention in the aforesaid mail. Please also indicate the session for which the speaker is being recommended. It appears that the IGF secretariat may be open to consider names even after the indicated end-date which passed yesterday, esp if it comes from an entity like the IGC. But we need to hurry up. I propose to close taking in names by end of tomorrow ie 15th. By tomorrow Vittorio and I will try to come out of a small noncom, which will decide by the stated criteria mostly regarding balance of views and other balances, and submit names on the behalf of the IGC by 17th day end. To get our nominated speakers in IGF session is important both from a 'substantive' viewpoint, as from process viewpoint in terms of keeping our stakeholder-ship in the whole IGF process alive and kicking. So I request everyone to treat this as a matter of urgent importance. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Sep 14 02:51:42 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:21:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070914065144.D6109678A1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Two more clarifications. (1) we will be able to go forward with this process only if sufficient number of names are received to enable the noncom to make a balanced recommendation (2) Noncom members themselves will be allowed to take up names on their own to ensure balance. I must also remind that names should be sent to Vittorio and me, and not to the list. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF This is to clarify that this call is ONLY for nomination to main sessions at the IGF - the four sessions on CIRs, access, diversity, and openness, plus one on emerging issues. The call is not for speakers for the workshops. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF Hi All For some reasons the process of nominating speakers from IGC to IGF is not working. And I wonder what is it that I could have done better. Suggestions are welcome. I enclose my email dated this Monday, where I had requested for nominations for speakers (including self-nomination). I had mentioned a couple of guiding conditions, and also had asked for 2-4 lines of justification why these speakers should be nominated (1) generally and (2) specifically by the IGC. I will add something I failed to mention in the aforesaid mail. Please also indicate the session for which the speaker is being recommended. It appears that the IGF secretariat may be open to consider names even after the indicated end-date which passed yesterday, esp if it comes from an entity like the IGC. But we need to hurry up. I propose to close taking in names by end of tomorrow ie 15th. By tomorrow Vittorio and I will try to come out of a small noncom, which will decide by the stated criteria mostly regarding balance of views and other balances, and submit names on the behalf of the IGC by 17th day end. To get our nominated speakers in IGF session is important both from a 'substantive' viewpoint, as from process viewpoint in terms of keeping our stakeholder-ship in the whole IGF process alive and kicking. So I request everyone to treat this as a matter of urgent importance. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 14 03:02:55 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:02:55 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <160534.39849.qm@web25512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Nnenna, Thanks for sharing your experience. While I believe we should be a bit optimistic and have hope that things will change sometimes the pace of change can be frustrating. When it takes too long for the object of hope to be achieved, frustration takes over. You are right, we have been talking about the problems and the solutions of the digital divide for close to a decade now, but how far have we gone forward? That is the most important question? In 2001, in the UK, not many people had Internet and broadband was not very common. One could go to the community library or phone and book to use the few (4 or 5) computers available to the public for Internet access. In fact, booking in advance was the wisest thing since priority was given to those who had made prior booking and there were not many computers for public Internet access. I travelled to other parts of the UK outside London and the situation was the same. In about 2 years, these same libraries had a pool of computers available for Internet access and I'm not talking about just one library in one town. In a relatively small town like Telford with about 138,241 inhabitants in 2001(http://www.myjobsinshropshire.co.uk/jobstelford.cms.asp) has about 6 public libraries. How many public libraries do we even have in a typical african city. Lack of these structures makes it more difficult to implement things. In the developing world, while you build on existing structures, in Africa, you must necessarily start from the ground and that is what the problem is. What you refer to in Burkina Faso is an exception, a pilot project, I suppose, that might not even be around in say 5 years. Sustainability of such projects in Africa is also another issue. Nnenna, something is fundamentality missing in our quest to find solutions and a few examples here and there doesn't mean we are getting there. We need to get a bit more serious. You and I and the other Africans on this forum should begin to critically look at the issues that are somewhat similar regardless of which African country one is from. It can be done, I believe, but I think the major problem is that those who are spearheading these efforts don't understand the underlying issues. Sorry, I got to pop out but let's keep talking. good day, Kwasi Nnenna wrote: Hi Folks I am reading through the thread here and I am smiling. The issues being raised here, we have raised them a million times. But I still believe that experience is the best teacher. Analysts can say what they want, but living in the situation is worth a million analyses. Two weeks ago, I was in 5 town in Burkina Faso to do an evaluation of the pilot projects that the Digital Solidarity Fund is supporting. In truth, electricity alone is not the only problem. But problems are not the only things that I saw. I also saw hope, optimism and a strong will power to rise beyond problems. There are options - Satelite is one of them. Solar power is one of them. Community access points too. In a far away village called Ouahigouya - the DSF has provided a Satellite Internet connection. In that center alone, the Internet is being offered to the public. They have video conferencing equipment and telemedicine is a reality. I was surprised that the cybercafé ran on Open Source Software and that local people are well adapted to it. In that same town, I slept in a hotel that was using solar panels for power. I am not speaking about what can happen. I am saying what has already happened. Cheers Nnenna Lee McKnight wrote: Bertrand, David, Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of technological and business model alternatives being explored within Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop Per Child. So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 .............................................................................................................................. --------------------------------- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Fri Sep 14 03:01:15 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:01:15 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01C0A169@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Nnenna, Thanks for this very, very interesting information full of hope, which also bring in an environment friendly aspect to the debate of technology! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) ________________________________ Från: Nnenna [mailto:nne75 at yahoo.com] Skickat: den 13 september 2007 18:18 Till: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening Hi Folks I am reading through the thread here and I am smiling. The issues being raised here, we have raised them a million times. But I still believe that experience is the best teacher. Analysts can say what they want, but living in the situation is worth a million analyses. Two weeks ago, I was in 5 town in Burkina Faso to do an evaluation of the pilot projects that the Digital Solidarity Fund is supporting. In truth, electricity alone is not the only problem. But problems are not the only things that I saw. I also saw hope, optimism and a strong will power to rise beyond problems. There are options - Satelite is one of them. Solar power is one of them. Community access points too. In a far away village called Ouahigouya - the DSF has provided a Satellite Internet connection. In that center alone, the Internet is being offered to the public. They have video conferencing equipment and telemedicine is a reality. I was surprised that the cybercafé ran on Open Source Software and that local people are well adapted to it. In that same town, I slept in a hotel that was using solar panels for power. I am not speaking about what can happen. I am saying what has already happened. Cheers Nnenna Lee McKnight wrote: Bertrand, David, Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of technological and business model alternatives being explored within Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop Per Child. So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post before it was finished) Hi David, You mentionned this quote : "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." And said : Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important element because the business models for both are very different. At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the digital divide). If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more expensive in these countries ? I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. Best Bertrand On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But > then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if > the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, > the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -------------- 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 Fri Sep 14 04:03:34 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:03:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re : New WSIS Civil Society Working Group on Information Networks Governance In-Reply-To: <00B578AC-24EE-4149-B877-306E7CA96BC4@psg.com> References: <46E71B40.3060309@mdpi.net> <00B578AC-24EE-4149-B877-306E7CA96BC4@psg.com> Message-ID: <46EA4056.5020405@bertola.eu> Avri Doria ha scritto: >> You and Louis seem to be hinting rather strongly that a few of us are >> in the pay of some government, business or the "domain name milk >> cow". It's a little insulting. But typical. > > it is not only being in the employ of one of these organizations that > disqualifies someone for membership. > even being a volunteer in an internet based organization like, IETF, > ICANN, ARIN etc., is enough, as i understand it. > though if one is only a member of ISOC, that may be ok, as I understand > it. Well, a couple of months ago one of the current ALAC members opened a thread denouncing that ISOC could be taking over the At Large, and so suggesting that further applications for At Large participation by ISOC chapters should be considered with special care. Of course almost everyone else disagreed, but I suspect that being a member of the "Internet community" could become an automatical disqualification for participation in ICANN's user constituencies as well. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Fri Sep 14 05:15:14 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:15:14 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Is enough happening? (was Re: Africa, ICT...) In-Reply-To: <160534.39849.qm@web25512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message from kwasi boakye-akyeampong on Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:02:55 +0100 (BST)) References: <160534.39849.qm@web25512.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070914091514.383D82201FD@quill.bollow.ch> kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > While I believe we should be a bit optimistic and have hope that > things will change sometimes the pace of change can be > frustrating. When it takes too long for the object of hope to be > achieved, frustration takes over. What is particularly frustrating is when when we see the magnitude of the problem increasing more quickly than the progress towards solving it, and we see no reason to hope for a change of the underlying economics driving these processes. What is needed is a fundamental economic change. With that I don't at all mean the arrogance of ideologically proclaiming how the world should work and then forcefully trying to make the world conform to those ideas. What we need is a realistic and pragmatic approach towards achieving fundamental economic change, with the goal of empowering all people everywhere to participate in information society with honor and in a way which empowers as many people as possible to earn sufficient money for meeting their needs through their own work. While ideology in my opinion certainly cannot help, I believe that faith can be an important element in such an initiative, not only because God answers humble prayers for wisdom and for blessing, but also because I believe that the faith-related value system of being willing to put community well-being ahead of greedy personal interests could become Africa's great strength as soon as the appropriate kind of infrastructure of economic processes is put in place for allowing this strength to directly drive economic value-creating processes. I think it is clear by now that the "Western" approach of setting up the economy so that the greed of investors drives the economy works quite effectively in certain cultural frameworks, but it does not work well enough in African cultural contexts. As I wrote on this list a while ago, I'd love to try adopting some role of leadership in some kind of community effort (to be inspired by the economic mechanisms that make the Free Software movement work) that seriously attempts to get something in this direction going (with emphasis not only on meeting the needs of the people in those parts of the world where lack of economic development is the primary problem, but also with emphasis on preventing technological development from being disabling for anyone). I hope that I'll be ready to post a draft "work-programme" proposal soon. > What you refer to in Burkina Faso is an exception, a pilot project, > I suppose, that might not even be around in say 5 > years. Sustainability of such projects in Africa is also another > issue. >From the pragmatic economic viewpoint, the fundamental question of sustainability is this: How does the project's value creation relate to its costs? In this context, the "value creation" measure does not include the personal statisfaction of project participants or any increase in their standard of living, but only goods and services and side-effects with beneficiaries outside the group of project participants. Ultimately, the way to achieve sustainability is to set up some kind of trade in which the value creation is used to pay for the costs. For developmentally worthwhile projects this is almost always difficult, but it should be obvious that there will never be enough funding to solve at least a significant part of Africa's problems unless most of the work can be done in economically self-sustaining ways, and self-sustainability is impossible for any project where the project's value creation is not greater than its costs! 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 14 06:22:06 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:22:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] about govt and the IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee, You mentioned you'd found a govt. supported for the caucus workshop -- Jamaica, right? Who is the lady there you have spoken highly of, and do you think she'd like to be invited to speak at the workshop (will she go to Rio, we have no money to pay for her expenses!) Do you know if any other good people from the Caribbean will be in Rio. I saw there was a meeting on IG recently organized by CTU. 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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 14 09:10:39 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:10:39 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> David wrote: "But then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered." Good point David. I was in Sierra Leone sometime this year as a volunteer for a Charitable organisation involved with street children and you have no idea how much of a shock I, an frican, had. Freetown, the capital town, has no power supply as a result those who can afford resort to power generators. Mobile phone charging is therefore a booming business. People have set up small shops where you go and charge your battery powered equipments. It costs 500 Leones (about 17 cents) to charge 1 battery meaning if you have a mobile phone and you charge it just once a day, you are going to spend 17 cents. It also costs 1,000 Leones (about 34 cents) to use the Internet for 1 hour at an Internet cafe. So charging your mobile phone just once a day and staying on the Internet for just an hour a day will cost 51 cents. And I'm talking about a country where more than 75% lives under $2 a day. Getting your mobile phone charged even depends on the guy who owns the shop. Sometimes he opens the shop late and imagine if you have to leave the house at by 9AM and the shop is still not open. There was a day that the shop close to my house didn't open because the owner's son was ill and I needed to charge my batteries (video camera, digital camera, digital audio recorder, and mobile phone). I had an appointment for an interview at 10 AM and some others afterwards. I had to cancel some of the appointments because there was no way I could attend to the first appointment, get the batteries charged and attend to the others. I'm not being negative here, but unless certain fundamental infrastructure, like electricity, is in place, every effort at tackling the digital divide will be frustrated. You can send free computers and mobile phones to the people and yet they will find it difficult to stay connected. The Sierra Leone situation is not too different from what happens in towns and villages outside the capitals in Africa. You still have power rationing and frequent outages even in the capital cities. I think what we have to be doing is to take a reflection on how much effort and resources have been pumped into bridging the digital divide and see whether the gains match up. If not, which I think is the case, then we should look for appropriate models that would suit each particular environment. Kwasi David Goldstein wrote: Hi all, I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in Africa: The dark continent. See http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African littoral." Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power consumption grows faster than their economies." There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave the ongoing development of ICT? For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana’s internet growth slowed by high cost. See http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the internet." Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. Anyway, something to think about. Cheers 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 .............................................................................................................................. “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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Sep 14 09:26:48 2007 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:26:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46EA8C18.2000508@wzb.eu> Hi, I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen for the opening ceremony or for the access panel, and I would like to nominate Milton Mueller for the Critical Internet Resources panel. jeanette Parminder schrieb: > > > Hi All > > > > > > For some reasons the process of nominating speakers from IGC to IGF is > not working. And I wonder what is it that I could have done better. > Suggestions are welcome. I enclose my email dated this Monday, where I > had requested for nominations for speakers (including self-nomination). > I had mentioned a couple of guiding conditions, and also had asked for > 2-4 lines of justification why these speakers should be nominated (1) > generally and (2) specifically by the IGC. I will add something I failed > to mention in the aforesaid mail. Please also indicate the session for > which the speaker is being recommended. > > > > It appears that the IGF secretariat may be open to consider names even > after the indicated end-date which passed yesterday, esp if it comes > from an entity like the IGC. But we need to hurry up. I propose to close > taking in names by end of tomorrow ie 15^th . By tomorrow Vittorio and I > will try to come out of a small noncom, which will decide by the stated > criteria mostly regarding balance of views and other balances, and > submit names on the behalf of the IGC by 17^th day end. > > > > To get our nominated speakers in IGF session is important both from a > ‘substantive’ viewpoint, as from process viewpoint in terms of keeping > our stakeholder-ship in the whole IGF process alive and kicking. > > > > So I request everyone to treat this as a matter of urgent importance. > > > > 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 // > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Betreff: > [governance] speakers for IGF > Von: > "Parminder" > Datum: > Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:09:37 +0530 > An: > , "'Lee McKnight'" , > , "'Avri Doria'" > > An: > , "'Lee McKnight'" , > , "'Avri Doria'" > > > > I had not seen the deadline for submitting names for panelists - and I now > see that it is the day after, on the 12th. I would say it is rather > short... > but we need to do what we can for this. > > So, I will suggest that everyone gives names for panelists to vittorio's > and > my email id. NOT TO THE IGC ID, because if there is to be a selection > process, which we still have to discuss and finalize, it wont be right to > have all names in public first. > > Each suggested name should be specific to one of the five main thematic > panels plus one for the emerging issues panel. Please add two to four lines > justifying why these names are appropriate for the panels and also why they > should be FORWARDED BY OR THROUGH THE IGC as speakers.... > > (1) Some involvement with the IGC or other collective CS processes is > preferable, but not necessary if the suggested person and her perspectives > STRONGLY meet the condition 2 and/or 3 below. I put this criterion because > we are a platform of collective CS action, and panelists can also be > suggested directly to the IGF secretariat by any person. > > (2) While suggesting names, it is important to keep in mind various > positions and perspectives that have been adopted and/ or strongly > discussed > in the IGC. In general, 'progressive' views normally associated with civil > society should also be a criterion. > > (3) Representing a 'CS view' or 'IGC view' is am important but not the only > objective of this process, and if some speakers can be expected to greatly > contribute in enriching the debate in the respective thematic area, that > should itself be a good justification. > > (4) Diversity of geography, gender, technical/ developmental/ social > background, special interest groups etc should be kept in mind. > > (5) As per some discussions on this list, it will also be useful to connect > workshops to main themes through suggesting panelists from among workshop > speakers. > > (6) anyone recommended should already be planning to be in rio. > > (these criterion will be further evolved if a selection process is adopted. > Vittorio is still to give his comments, but I thought I should start the > process because there isnt much time) > > I will request the secretariat to extend the deadline to 17th so we have a > week, but I cant be sure they will do it. Others who have some leverage > with > the secretariat may also try to do so. > > Parminder > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:09 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Lee McKnight'; dogwallah at gmail.com; > 'Avri > > Doria' > > Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > discussing > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > > at IGF. > > > > > > > Thanks Lee, Vittorio and I are conferring on it, and will come out > with a > > scheme for this within the next 24 hours. > > > > 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: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] > > > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:39 AM > > > To: dogwallah at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > > > Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > > > > > Everyone, > > > > > > I keep hoping the list will get back to its day job of, say, > discussing > > > whom might be recommended by the CS community to speak to which topic > > > at IGF. > > > > > > Since, according to my 2-bit clock, IGF is now 2 months away. > > > > > > So great we have a decent agenda, and a good lineup of plenaries, but > > > still it's looking like an empty shell at the moment...and the > clock is > > > ticking. > > > > > > Can our fearless and hopefully collegially speaking co-coordinators > > > suggest some next steps to move things forward? Parminder? Vittorio? > > > > > > Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > > > School of Information Studies > > > Syracuse University > > > +1-315-443-6891office > > > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > > > > > >>> dogwallah at gmail.com 9/9/2007 9:11 PM >>> > > > Hi Avri, > > > > > > On 9/8/07, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8 sep 2007, at 14.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > > MM > > > > >> And there are serious policy debates even within IETF about the > > > > >> bloc size of IPv6 address distributions. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, no. The IETF stuck a fork in that one long ago. I think > > > it > > > > > was RFC3513 (or maybe 3531, I've always been dyslexic about those > > > > > two.) Again all this info is widely available on IETF/RIR lists. > > > I > > > > > encourage you to join them or read their archives if you really > > > wwant > > > > > to gain "expertise" in these fields. > > > > > > > > > > > > actually they have been bickering about it again. check out the > > > > threads: > > > > > > > > IPv6 addresses really are scarce after all > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47212.html > > > > > > Ummm... this was fwded from the ARIN list (I got it there first), it's > > > hardly "serious > > > policy debate". If it was, there would be a draft RFC making the > > > rounds (which I haven't seen). > > > > > > As you can clearly see from this message, some in the RIR communities > > > aren't happy with the /32,/48,/64,/128 IETF recommendations and are > > > proposing changes to regional numbering policies to more closely match > > > their requirements. > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > IPv6 RIR Policy [was Re: IPv6 addresses really are scarce after > > > all] > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg47527.html > > > > > > > > I was meant to write something up on it for someone, but never got a > > > > round to it, > > > > and the debate is still ongoing. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, and the debate is 99% in the RIR lists, after all they are the > > > ones who make the policies. The IETF made architectural decisions. I > > > don't see them changing this, especially since it is a general > > > discussion list, and NOT a WG list. > > > > > > > > > > but it is an interesting thread. > > > > > > > > a good and breif synopisis is: > > > > > > > > > > again, the fundamental problem here is that the RIRs are trying to > > > > > second-guess IETF design decisions. > > > > > > The above is a good summary of the situation. However, it's not like > > > some second guessing isn't in order in re: IPv6. > > > > > > The situation, however is much more complex than the above, which is > > > what you might expect to see in an article in the media. I would > > > suggest that policy makers need deep familiarity with the issues, > > > which is why I have made sincere suggestions that more people on this > > > list join the current debates on actual techno-policy in fora where > > > they can actually make a difference. > > > > > > Milton. > > > I'm not feigning, I actually do know more about IPv6 issues than most > > > (but not all) on this list. I know more because I have been reading > > > dozens of mailing list mails on the subject every day for many years, > > > while you seem to have been reading articles in newspapers/magazines > > > and blogs. I am certain that if you want to actually help distribute > > > internet addresses, you have to participate in the forum that does > > > just that. If you want to just talk about it, well, you are right, > > > the IGF is the place to be. > > > > > > I read your blog religiously, in fact it's on my Google homepage. Of > > > the 3 you mention, one is a link to the ISP column, (also available on > > > ISOC website: http://isoc.org/educpillar/resources/), One is a link to > > > an ARIN statement, and the other is an editorial piece on arstechnica, > > > critical of the ARIN statement. While this is "publishing", it > > > doesn't show that you understand the issues, it justs shows that you > > > can make a hyperlink ;-) > > > > > > Parminder > > > I think I actually asked for "right to development text" to be taken > > > out of a statement, not "off the list". > > > > > > Regarding your comment on giving feedback to the technical policy > > > folk, I suggest there is only one place to do this, and that is in the > > > germaine technical policy fora. I am only "partisan" when it comes to > > > retaining bottomuppity-ness, I am pretty much agnostic aboout the rest > > > of your first reply. > > > > > > As to the second, I don't really know what "neo-liberal means (but it > > > sounds bad when you say it). I have always been a "Minnesota > > > knee-jerk liberal", in the Humphrey/Mondale/Wellstone tradition of my > > > home state. I don't think it's the same tho. > > > > > > I DO know that if I want to connect a rural school or health clinic in > > > a rural area here in Uganda, it's MUCH easier to first find a > > > corporate entity in the area that needs connectivity, let them pay for > > > the infrastructure, then hang the school/clinic off that. > > > > > > I don't know what you call the kind of person that does that, and I > > > don't much care. > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > > > > McTim > > > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 14 10:06:04 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: 20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net Message-ID: Hi, *If* Karl Auerbach plans on attending RioIGF/07, I would like to nominate Karl Auerbach for the Critical Internet Resources panel [Substantive issues in CIR per IGF]. His aptitude of knowledge in: voip/foip, smtp, various application layer protocols, and router designs is particularly invaluable. Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Sep 14 10:21:56 2007 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton A Samuels) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:21:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] about govt and the IGF workshop proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Her name is Karlene Francis. She may be reached at kfrancis at mct.gov.jm I suspect that Bernadette Lewis, Secretary-General of CTU, would also be attending. I'm tentatively attending, funding permitting. Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies at Mona -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 5:22 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight Subject: [governance] about govt and the IGF workshop proposal Lee, You mentioned you'd found a govt. supported for the caucus workshop -- Jamaica, right? Who is the lady there you have spoken highly of, and do you think she'd like to be invited to speak at the workshop (will she go to Rio, we have no money to pay for her expenses!) Do you know if any other good people from the Caribbean will be in Rio. I saw there was a meeting on IG recently organized by CTU. 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 vb at bertola.eu Fri Sep 14 11:02:41 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:02:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <46EA8C18.2000508@wzb.eu> References: <20070914055710.6C41AE048E@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46EA8C18.2000508@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <46EAA291.7050902@bertola.eu> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > Hi, I would like to nominate Anriette Esterhuysen for the opening > ceremony or for the access panel, and I would like to nominate Milton > Mueller for the Critical Internet Resources panel. Before more nominations come, I would like to propose that, as long as we have a sufficient number of credible nominations, we employ a principle of rotation, so that those who already spoke in last year's ceremonies and main sessions are not considered for this year's ones. It seems to me just a fair principle in regards to the diversity that civil society in general, and this caucus in particular, can expose. -- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Sep 14 11:37:40 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:37:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <243252.62905.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Milton writes: "I have always argued that ICT development is driven by broader, systemic economic development and cannot be considered in isolation". That is true in regards to power problems which is a nightmare in many developing countries. When one consider that alternatives to power malfunctions are being soughtout, like the fascinating solar energy approach by The Barefoot college of India where "Science illitrate" persons are trained in solar energy (ASAFE is currently solar electrifying two villages in Cameroon using that approach), then there is no cause for alarm. The proliferation of mobile phones and the advent of of the Internet is a blessing to these countries. If governments are ineffective in engaging in any systemic economic development policies, civil society organisations should come in. We currently live in a capitalist global State, where policies are made favoring those who have, leaving the havenots to damn their consequencies. When the Haves must have amassed so much wealth, and hit by some moral jitters, they turn around and chip something around through name cause-marketing foundations. Let the debate glow Aaron On 9/14/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > David wrote: > "But then, a handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to > work. Even if the device can be powered by some form of wind-up > mechanism, for example, the infrastructure still needs to b developed, and > powered." > Good point David. I was in Sierra Leone sometime this year as a volunteer > for a Charitable organisation involved with street children and you have no > idea how much of a shock I, an frican, had. Freetown, the capital town, has > no power supply as a result those who can afford resort to power generators. > Mobile phone charging is therefore a booming business. People have set up > small shops where you go and charge your battery powered equipments. It > costs 500 Leones (about 17 cents) to charge 1 battery meaning if you have a > mobile phone and you charge it just once a day, you are going to spend 17 > cents. It also costs 1,000 Leones (about 34 cents) to use the Internet for 1 > hour at an Internet cafe. So charging your mobile phone just once a day and > staying on the Internet for just an hour a day will cost 51 cents. And I'm > talking about a country where more than 75% lives under $2 a day. > > Getting your mobile phone charged even depends on the guy who owns the shop. > Sometimes he opens the shop late and imagine if you have to leave the house > at by 9AM and the shop is still not open. There was a day that the shop > close to my house didn't open because the owner's son was ill and I needed > to charge my batteries (video camera, digital camera, digital audio > recorder, and mobile phone). I had an appointment for an interview at 10 AM > and some others afterwards. I had to cancel some of the appointments because > there was no way I could attend to the first appointment, get the batteries > charged and attend to the others. > > I'm not being negative here, but unless certain fundamental infrastructure, > like electricity, is in place, every effort at tackling the digital divide > will be frustrated. You can send free computers and mobile phones to the > people and yet they will find it difficult to stay connected. > > The Sierra Leone situation is not too different from what happens in towns > and villages outside the capitals in Africa. You still have power rationing > and frequent outages even in the capital cities. > > I think what we have to be doing is to take a reflection on how much effort > and resources have been pumped into bridging the digital divide and see > whether the gains match up. If not, which I think is the case, then we > should look for appropriate models that would suit each particular > environment. > > Kwasi > > David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - Electricity in > Africa: The dark continent. See > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in Africa. > The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the world's > population, but > generates only 4% of global electricity. Three-quarters of that is used > by South Africa, Egypt and the other countries along the north African > littoral." > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to electricity and > more power will be needed to get at the country's trove of minerals. ... > Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the world's biggest supplier > of temporary electricity in the shape of back-up generators. It meets > up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and 10% of those of Kenya and > Tanzania. It believes that the global power shortfall in the next > decade will be much greater than predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The > ensuing competition for energy, it argues, will see the world split > between those countries whose economies grow faster than their power > consumption and those, including most of Africa, whose power > consumption grows faster than their economies." > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of Africa > before the vast majority of the population can even be connected to the > internet. And then with a global shortfall of power, where does that leave > the ongoing development of ICT? > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an article on > Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by high cost. See > http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in > spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the > country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony > than they have access to the internet." > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa could > be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so planning on > governance issues probably should be done with this in mind. But then, a > handheld device of any sort still needs electricity to work. Even if the > device can be powered by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the > infrastructure still needs to b developed, and powered. > > Anyway, something to think about. > > Cheers > 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 > > > > .............................................................................................................................. > "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 > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 14 13:16:15 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:16:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: >This is to clarify that this call is ONLY for >nomination to main sessions at the IGF ­ the >four sessions on CIRs, access, diversity, and >openness, plus one on emerging issues. > Parminder, You missed Security. There's also a session "Taking Stock and the way forward" and the Opening Ceremony. We should recommend speakers for the Opening Ceremony. Last year Natasha Primo used her time split between her own issues (Gender and ICT) and also addressed key civil society bullet points. I think this was successful. The "Taking Stock and the way forward" session may be interesting/difficult given the point in one of Everton Lucero's "food for thought" papers: "2. On structure: - A main working session will be devoted to a discussion on the structure for future meetings, including the role, criteria, nomination, rotation and procedures for the Advisory Group or other supporting body." (Everton is an advisor to the Brazilian co-chair) The taking stock session seems the obvious target for this. But I wonder if it's at odds with the press release from the Secretary General appointing the MAG: "Any decision on how to prepare subsequent meetings will be taken after the Rio de Janeiro meeting in an open, inclusive and transparent consultative process, taking into account the proposals of the Advisory Group." Whatever... can't ignore the issue. I would like the session to focus more on what people think the IGF should be doing ongoing, particularly views from developing nations (there are too few participating). Suggest a third on IGF structure and MAG to set up a consultation on those issues post-Rio, and the rest looking at building on Rio towards Delhi. Thanks, Adam >The call is not for speakers for the workshops. > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 11:27 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 14 13:25:08 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:25:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 2:10 PM +0100 9/14/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: >I think what we have to be doing is to take a reflection on how much >effort and resources have been pumped into bridging the digital divide and >see whether the gains match up. If not, which I think is the case, then we >should look for appropriate models that would suit each particular >environment. I think this is a very sensible approach, as each local context likely has unique characteristics that are best served by a custom blend of solutions. In fact, this is true in developed countries as well as developing countries. In the US we had a big implosion recently of EarthLink with regard to municipal wireless systems (for communities that either had little or no broadband coverage, or wanted to expand broadband options and assure universal coverage within the municipality, etc. -- that is, the digital divide exists within the US itself, not just in developing countries). EarthLink, for example, laid off 900 staff including the former head of wireless business, is opting out of its contract for Houston, TX, and has backed out of the proposed (but not yet ratified) deal in San Francisco, CA. The hype is that "this is the end of muni wireless" but that of course is claptrap. The rational analysis suggests that "nothin's for nothin'" and the business models that followed a few pilot projects and supposed that all municipalities could get "wireless for free" was unrealistic. What this leaves us with in the US is an understanding that (1) there are a whole range of options in terms of how to build muni broadband systems (including both wireless and fiber, involving both public and private assets where private can be some mix of for-profit and non-profit entities, with various different models for financing, etc.), and each case should be developed bottom up on its individual merits. That is, one must (a) evaluate the current state of the community or communities that one wants to provide access, (b) assess the primary needs of those communities in terms of how they would most benefit from Internet (or broadband) access, and particularly involve community members and local community-based organizations in assessing those needs, and (c) let those needs and whatever current assets be the driving factors in choosing how to design a plan that will most effectively address the needs that have been identified. One size most definitely does not fit all in the US, and I suspect elsewhere as well. In Africa some of the details may differ, but the overall process may still be applicable. So for example, just getting *any* access is a first step, rather than worrying about how to get from dial-up to broadband (although, in some cases it may be possible to go directly to some variant of broadband, even if not the highest speeds -- note that in the struggling US broadband market, speeds in the hundreds of kbps are often still considered "broadband" -- personally I live out of DSL and cable range, so I have only satellite service beyond dial-up, and that is rather expensive and entailed a huge setup cost, and my speed is about 750-800 kbps down and about 150 kbps up). Interesting technology is starting to come on the market too. In San Francisco, as the delay in the muni wireless project dragged on, a small Silicon Valley startup called Meraki (yes, funded partially by Google) began a pilot project setting up a wireless mesh network that has as an option a solar powered kit that can power a wireless mesh repeater. See: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19260/?a=f Now of course, such options still require funding for setup and maintenance, and that will always be a challenge when resources are extremely scarce. But it occurs to me that funding pools might be arranged on more of a large-scale basis even while the details of local designs might be case-specific. But where money concentrates, power politics follow, so this must be evaluated in the local political context as well. As for battery-charging services, someone mentioned wind-up charging (which is available on some "camping" radios, etc. in the US, but at prices that may not make sense in Africa unless subsidized -- still, they would pay themselves off in under a year at the rate of 50 cents/day, so does a typical African have resources to self-finance an amount of that magnitude? perhaps this is a task for micro-finance). If a large market were developed for such technology, perhaps one or more manufacturers would be attracted to building inexpensive wind-up chargers for battery-powered devices in bulk, as a complement to centralized electric power service. So there is an aspect of chicken-egg here, but if addressed under a comprehensive policy maybe the chicken and egg could be established simultaneously in a large-scale package deal. In any case, I'm not suggesting that these are at all fully-developed answers to the issues, but that one ought to continue exploring as many varied options as possible, while understanding that a complete solution in any one case will involve a whole complex of related markets, and that each local case will likely have some unique characteristics. I think this principle of local variation is applicable pretty much everywhere, regardless of the state of one's economy. 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 wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Sep 14 14:43:40 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:43:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Preparations for the next GAID Steering Committee meeting (NY, 19 September 2007) Message-ID: <200709141842.l8EIgw5W007125@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 01 SteeCmtng-19Sept-DRAFTAGENDA29Aug.doc Type: application/msword Size: 56832 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 08 note on KL meeting.doc Type: application/msword Size: 51200 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 09 Outreach report.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 06:54:38 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 12:54:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity In-Reply-To: References: <707146.36365.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That sounds more reflective and on purpose. Thank you Dan. Aaron On 9/14/07, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 2:10 PM +0100 9/14/07, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > > >I think what we have to be doing is to take a reflection on how much > >effort and resources have been pumped into bridging the digital divide and > >see whether the gains match up. If not, which I think is the case, then we > >should look for appropriate models that would suit each particular > >environment. > > > I think this is a very sensible approach, as each local context likely has > unique characteristics that are best served by a custom blend of solutions. > > In fact, this is true in developed countries as well as developing > countries. In the US we had a big implosion recently of EarthLink with > regard to municipal wireless systems (for communities that either had > little or no broadband coverage, or wanted to expand broadband options and > assure universal coverage within the municipality, etc. -- that is, the > digital divide exists within the US itself, not just in developing > countries). > > EarthLink, for example, laid off 900 staff including the former head of > wireless business, is opting out of its contract for Houston, TX, and has > backed out of the proposed (but not yet ratified) deal in San Francisco, CA. > > The hype is that "this is the end of muni wireless" but that of course is > claptrap. The rational analysis suggests that "nothin's for nothin'" and > the business models that followed a few pilot projects and supposed that > all municipalities could get "wireless for free" was unrealistic. > > What this leaves us with in the US is an understanding that (1) there are a > whole range of options in terms of how to build muni broadband systems > (including both wireless and fiber, involving both public and private > assets where private can be some mix of for-profit and non-profit entities, > with various different models for financing, etc.), and each case should be > developed bottom up on its individual merits. > > That is, one must (a) evaluate the current state of the community or > communities that one wants to provide access, (b) assess the primary needs > of those communities in terms of how they would most benefit from Internet > (or broadband) access, and particularly involve community members and local > community-based organizations in assessing those needs, and (c) let those > needs and whatever current assets be the driving factors in choosing how to > design a plan that will most effectively address the needs that have been > identified. > > One size most definitely does not fit all in the US, and I suspect > elsewhere as well. > > In Africa some of the details may differ, but the overall process may still > be applicable. So for example, just getting *any* access is a first step, > rather than worrying about how to get from dial-up to broadband (although, > in some cases it may be possible to go directly to some variant of > broadband, even if not the highest speeds -- note that in the struggling US > broadband market, speeds in the hundreds of kbps are often still considered > "broadband" -- personally I live out of DSL and cable range, so I have only > satellite service beyond dial-up, and that is rather expensive and entailed > a huge setup cost, and my speed is about 750-800 kbps down and about 150 > kbps up). > > Interesting technology is starting to come on the market too. In San > Francisco, as the delay in the muni wireless project dragged on, a small > Silicon Valley startup called Meraki (yes, funded partially by Google) > began a pilot project setting up a wireless mesh network that has as an > option a solar powered kit that can power a wireless mesh repeater. See: > http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/19260/?a=f > > Now of course, such options still require funding for setup and > maintenance, and that will always be a challenge when resources are > extremely scarce. But it occurs to me that funding pools might be arranged > on more of a large-scale basis even while the details of local designs > might be case-specific. But where money concentrates, power politics > follow, so this must be evaluated in the local political context as well. > > As for battery-charging services, someone mentioned wind-up charging (which > is available on some "camping" radios, etc. in the US, but at prices that > may not make sense in Africa unless subsidized -- still, they would pay > themselves off in under a year at the rate of 50 cents/day, so does a > typical African have resources to self-finance an amount of that magnitude? > perhaps this is a task for micro-finance). If a large market were > developed for such technology, perhaps one or more manufacturers would be > attracted to building inexpensive wind-up chargers for battery-powered > devices in bulk, as a complement to centralized electric power service. So > there is an aspect of chicken-egg here, but if addressed under a > comprehensive policy maybe the chicken and egg could be established > simultaneously in a large-scale package deal. > > In any case, I'm not suggesting that these are at all fully-developed > answers to the issues, but that one ought to continue exploring as many > varied options as possible, while understanding that a complete solution in > any one case will involve a whole complex of related markets, and that each > local case will likely have some unique characteristics. > > I think this principle of local variation is applicable pretty much > everywhere, regardless of the state of one's economy. > > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 16 05:28:17 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:28:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for suggestions about names for a while. I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. But, we should consider: There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.) So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, or, at least you have already started to find out. Thanks, Adam Opening Ceremony Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) Delphine Nana Critical Internet Resources Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. Access Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of information and communications systems over the last 15 years. (*strong preference*) Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. Diversity Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. (*strong preference*) Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) (I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in Athens.) Openness Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong preference*) Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe (was a panelist in Athens) Michael Geist (Canada) Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. Security Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: cybercrime and privacy issues. (Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) Taking Stock and the way forward William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland. Emerging Issues No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu supporter (Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, futurists etc. Thoughts?) 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 16 05:33:05 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:33:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Upwardly Mobile In Africa Message-ID: <10577.42845.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Following on from the recent discussion on ICT in Africa, I found this article in Business Week today. Upwardly Mobile In Africa How basic cell phones are sparking economic hope and growth in emerging—and even non-emerging—nations ... These days, just about every tradesman, shopkeeper, and farmer in town has a phone—or at least access to one. "Customers give my number to other customers. The business has grown," says Susan Wairimu, whose tailor shop sits in the row of one-story buildings that constitute the village center. And Willson Maragua's transport business in Muruguru, which consists of him and a used pickup truck, could hardly function without mobile technology. Local farmers, members of the Kikuyu tribe prevalent in the area, summon him to haul their coffee beans to a growers' cooperative in a nearby valley. Now Maragua, an ebullient man wearing a baseball cap that says "Bachelorette Party," lives in a home with a concrete floor and a solar panel on the roof to power a radio and a lightbulb—and recharge his family's two handsets. With a mobile phone, he says over a lunch of corn, potatoes, and stewed goat, "You can manage your business." http://businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_39/b4051054.htm I put more articles on issues such as digital divide, governance, domain names and more on my website each day at http://technewsreview.com.au/ Cheers 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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 16 05:36:00 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:36:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET Message-ID: <171582.79859.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Folks, Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my apologies. - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts have made)? The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to argue from but I need your opinions. Thanks. Kwasi .............................................................................................................................. “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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Sep 16 05:49:11 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:49:11 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D9CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Should we make also proposals for moderators? Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the issue from developing countries? South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, TV Globo? Wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for suggestions about names for a while. I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. But, we should consider: There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.) So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, or, at least you have already started to find out. Thanks, Adam Opening Ceremony Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) Delphine Nana Critical Internet Resources Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. Access Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of information and communications systems over the last 15 years. (*strong preference*) Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. Diversity Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. (*strong preference*) Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) (I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in Athens.) Openness Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong preference*) Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe (was a panelist in Athens) Michael Geist (Canada) Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. Security Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: cybercrime and privacy issues. (Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) Taking Stock and the way forward William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland. Emerging Issues No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu supporter (Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, futurists etc. Thoughts?) END ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 16 06:26:19 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:26:19 +0900 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D9CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D9CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 16 06:37:21 2007 From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:37:21 +0100 (BST) Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <612558.42939.qm@web25501.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Adam, I am a radio and TV journalist but not attending. I don't even think I qualify since I have no real work experience yet, apart from student internship and volunteering. Also I've been out of Africa for sometime but as I plan to go back soon, i hope to play a more useful role in the very near future. Once i'm back home, I'll be able to network with experienced journalists and link them to this list for any future involvement. Regards, Kwasi Adam Peake wrote: At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance .............................................................................................................................. “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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 16 06:45:15 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:45:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, A request! Having sent names to a public list, and not having asked the people concerned before doing so, please let's not start discussing the merits of individuals on the list. Comments for and against would not be helpful (particularly against.) We have very little time to make recommendations and it seems a good idea to get potential names known. It may help think about balance etc. But let's not insult people. I hope the nomcom process Parminder and Vitorrio works out and support them. 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 16 06:58:49 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 19:58:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: oops.. > >I hope the nomcom process Parminder and Vitorrio works out and support them. I hope the nomcom process Parminder and Vitorrio are setting up works out and support them. Adam >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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sun Sep 16 22:22:29 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:22:29 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF Message-ID: Re media, my sister-in-law Heloisa Mendes is a Globo TV journalist, based in Brasilia. She usually covers the Brazilian Congress for a Global cable news channel, I can contact her for a referral to a Rio correspondent if she's not interested/available herself - her English is decent, and her husband is a computer graphics/printing guy, so she's exposed at least to some of the geeky side of things. I imagine the Brazilian hosts have similar or even better/hgher profile media contacts. Carlos? 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 9/16/2007 6:26 AM >>> At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Sep 16 23:17:26 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:47:26 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070917031727.B59DBE1A9C@smtp3.electricembers.net> > If you know the names of people who will be > attending, why not? But as it probably costs a > lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't > see any point in taking time to discuss names > unless there's a realistic way of getting them to > Rio. > > Last year I believe the european broadcasting > union brought them and I guess paid. > > Adam Are we struck with journalists doing the moderations. I thought there was a lot of criticism of such a format at Athens. Can't we have moderators who are more tuned in to the issues. 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: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:56 PM > To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >Should we make also proposals for moderators? > >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the > >issue from developing countries? South African > >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, > >TV Globo? > > > > > > If you know the names of people who will be > attending, why not? But as it probably costs a > lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't > see any point in taking time to discuss names > unless there's a realistic way of getting them to > Rio. > > Last year I believe the european broadcasting > union brought them and I guess paid. > > Adam > > > > >Wolfgang > > > > > >________________________________ > > > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 > >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > > > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my > >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for > >suggestions about names for a while. > > > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. > >But, we should consider: > > > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we > >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open > >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad > >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to > >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to > >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only > >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good > >chance of being there.) > > > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic > >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or > >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need > >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > > > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, > >or, at least you have already started to find out. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Adam > > > > > >Opening Ceremony > > > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > > > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > > > >Delphine Nana > > > > > >Critical Internet Resources > > > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in > >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > > > > >Access > > > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in > >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of > >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > > (*strong preference*) > > > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > > > > >Diversity > > > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the > >Blind. (*strong preference*) > > > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > > > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > > > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is > >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in > >Athens.) > > > > > >Openness > > > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on > >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong > >preference*) > > > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > > (was a panelist in > >Athens) > > > >Michael Geist (Canada) > > > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio > >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > > > > >Security > > > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative > >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > > > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy > issues. > > > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: > >cybercrime and privacy issues. > > > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to > >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to > >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the > >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > > > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > > > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and > >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies > >Geneva, Switzerland. > > > > > >Emerging Issues > > > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth > >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu > >supporter > > > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very > >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, > >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > > > > >END > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Sep 16 23:55:43 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:55:43 +0900 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070917031728.88184EC00A@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> References: <20070917031728.88184EC00A@mhsmx12.bizmail.nifty.com> Message-ID: At 8:47 AM +0530 9/17/07, Parminder wrote: > > If you know the names of people who will be >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't >> see any point in taking time to discuss names >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to >> Rio. >> >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting >> union brought them and I guess paid. >> >> Adam > >Are we struck with journalists doing the moderations. I thought there was a >lot of criticism of such a format at Athens. I think they will be used again. If you look back at the stocktaking session, the moderators were generally well received (see synthesis paper of comments, and transcript.) There was one major criticism (Riaz) of a mistake. There's been very little discussion of the modalities of the meeting -- one of the things overlooked while the advisory group was in waiting on the secretary general's office. Should have been discussed in more detail in May. I don't remember seeing any concrete proposal describing how to better moderate the sessions, there were a lot of comments about ensuring the moderators were better prepared. If moderators are used, we know they need better briefing on issues, and all except the person doing critical Internet resources will have chance to attend three workshops on their theme before the session. Moderators and panelists will need time together to prepare (should be easier when the panels are smaller.) Other ideas to support the moderators are being discussed. >Can't we have moderators who >are more tuned in to the issues. How would we find them and bring them to Rio? How do we find a neutral, informed person (or persons)? Thanks, Adam >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: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:56 PM >> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF >> >> At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >> >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >> >issue from developing countries? South African >> >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >> >TV Globo? >> > >> >> >> >> If you know the names of people who will be >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't >> see any point in taking time to discuss names >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to >> Rio. >> >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting >> union brought them and I guess paid. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >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 mazzone at ebu.ch Mon Sep 17 02:46:45 2007 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:46:45 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF Message-ID: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D0900F5FD@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> Dear Adam and Wolfgang, suggestions are more than welcomed. But to explain how we're currently working, WBU (World Broadcasting Union) of which EBU is part, is currently working on a list of six moderators: one from Asia (very likely a Japanese), one from Arabic countries (very likely an Algerian), two from Europe (BBC and France 24), one from North America and one from Latin America (Brazil). As Adam very well sintetized, the main problem is the availability of that kind of skilled professionals (usually each one of them carry on a weekly or daily programme on the air) and the cost to support to bring them there. Each organization of WBU support entirely their costs and this is why they mainly come from rich countries. Having said so, the list is still open and if you have suggestions, we are ready to study and we can try to see what can be done. On the contrary, if we stick to our existing list, I stress you the point that -once finalized the list- the main problem will be to have people from Civil Society that can properly brief our moderators. Last year we did it thanks to the goodwill of some of you (Adam i.e.) but mainly suggestions and briefs came from business partners. And that was a pity.... even if I believe the moderators were quite balanced and fair. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: dimanche, 16. septembre 2007 12:26 To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 17 03:15:04 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: , <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46EE4598.24216.146F846E@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all Yes... and Nnenna and Lee have pointed out. Alternatives are availble and people use them. I am not suggesting we ignore the importance of sustainable and accessible energy sources, but let us not forget the millions of Africans who do have access to electricity, but not to the internet (because of lack of infrastructure, and high costs of access and of hardware). African institutions such as schools, universities, businesses, hospitals, research centres, local governmen officest, libraries where they exist, etc. struggle to get access to, or if they have access, to afford the bandwidth they need to perform every day actions (like downloading software, books, etc.) that users in other parts of the world take for granted. Anriette > Hi Folks > > I am reading through the thread here and I am smiling. The issues > being raised here, we have raised them a million times. But I > still believe that experience is the best teacher. Analysts can > say what they want, but living in the situation is worth a million > analyses. > > Two weeks ago, I was in 5 town in Burkina Faso to do an evaluation > of the pilot projects that the Digital Solidarity Fund is > supporting. > > In truth, electricity alone is not the only problem. But problems > are not the only things that I saw. I also saw hope, optimism and > a strong will power to rise beyond problems. > > There are options - Satelite is one of them. Solar power is one of > them. Community access points too. In a far away village called > Ouahigouya - the DSF has provided a Satellite Internet connection. > In that center alone, the Internet is being offered to the public. > They have video conferencing equipment and telemedicine is a > reality. I was surprised that the cybercafé ran on Open Source > Software and that local people are well adapted to it. > > In that same town, I slept in a hotel that was using solar panels > for power. > > I am not speaking about what can happen. I am saying what has > already happened. > > Cheers > > Nnenna > > Lee McKnight wrote: Bertrand, David, > > Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of > technological and business model alternatives being explored within > Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major > multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop > Per Child. > > So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same > constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is > probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's > the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> > (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post > before it was finished) > > Hi David, > > You mentionned this quote : > "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the > proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians > have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the > internet." > > And said : > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa > could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so > planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in > mind. > > This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively > slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important > element because the business models for both are very different. > > At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor > countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another > village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the > replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority > of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on > general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces > to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, > but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet > Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the > digital divide). > > If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that > not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more > expensive in these countries ? > > I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - > > Electricity in Africa: The dark continent. See > > http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. > > > > This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in > > Africa. The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the > > world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. > > Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other > > countries along the north African littoral." > > > > Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to > > electricity and more power will be needed to get at the country's > > trove of minerals. ... Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the > > world's biggest supplier of temporary electricity in the shape of > > back-up generators. It meets up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and > > 10% of those of Kenya and Tanzania. It believes that the global > > power shortfall in the next decade will be much greater than > > predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The ensuing competition for > > energy, it argues, will see the world split between those countries > > whose economies grow faster than their power consumption and those, > > including most of Africa, whose power consumption grows faster than > > their economies." > > > > There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of > > Africa before the vast majority of the population can even be > > connected to the internet. And then with a global shortfall of > > power, where does that leave the ongoing development of ICT? > > > > For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an > > article on Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by > > high cost. See http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. > > > > The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the > > internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due > > to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than > > they have access to the internet." > > > > Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of > > Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart > > phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be > > done with this in mind. But then, a handheld device of any sort > > still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered > > by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure > > still needs to b developed, and powered. > > > > Anyway, something to think about. > > > > Cheers > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting > humans") ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > --------------------------------- > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your > story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. ------------------------------------------------------ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Sep 17 03:25:08 2007 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:25:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Upwardly Mobile In Africa In-Reply-To: <10577.42845.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <10577.42845.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070917072508.GA8265@nic.fr> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:33:05AM -0700, David Goldstein wrote a message of 42 lines which said: > Following on from the recent discussion on ICT in Africa, I found > this article in Business Week today. It is just another on of the many ads for the mobile phone industry. About wireless in Africa, I wrote a small opinion (in French): http://www.bortzmeyer.org/sans-fil.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 riazt at iafrica.com Mon Sep 17 03:39:26 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:39:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: <46EE4598.24216.146F846E@anriette.apc.org> References: , <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <46EE4598.24216.146F846E@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <46EE2F2E.3070203@iafrica.com> Be good to know how the PRSPs (as opposed to the disastrous SAPs) of the World Bank and IMF are going to perform... SAPs were a disaster even by the Bank's own reckoning - are we in for more of the same? Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hallo all > > Yes... and Nnenna and Lee have pointed out. > Alternatives are availble and people use them. > > I am not suggesting we ignore the importance of > sustainable and accessible energy sources, but let us not > forget the millions of Africans who do have access to > electricity, but not to the internet (because of lack of > infrastructure, and high costs of access and of hardware). > > African institutions such as schools, universities, > businesses, hospitals, research centres, local governmen > officest, libraries where they exist, etc. struggle to get > access to, or if they have access, to afford the bandwidth > they need to perform every day actions (like downloading > software, books, etc.) that users in other parts of the > world take for granted. > > 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 riazt at iafrica.com Mon Sep 17 03:39:10 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:39:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa, ICT and electricity - things are happening In-Reply-To: <46EE4598.24216.146F846E@anriette.apc.org> References: , <977019.75998.qm@web50211.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <46EE4598.24216.146F846E@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <46EE2F1E.5050708@iafrica.com> Be good to know how the PRSPs (as opposed to the disastrous SAPs) of the World Bank and IMF are going to perform... SAPs were a disaster even by the Bank's own reckoning - are we in for more of the same? Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Hallo all > > Yes... and Nnenna and Lee have pointed out. > Alternatives are availble and people use them. > > I am not suggesting we ignore the importance of > sustainable and accessible energy sources, but let us not > forget the millions of Africans who do have access to > electricity, but not to the internet (because of lack of > infrastructure, and high costs of access and of hardware). > > African institutions such as schools, universities, > businesses, hospitals, research centres, local governmen > officest, libraries where they exist, etc. struggle to get > access to, or if they have access, to afford the bandwidth > they need to perform every day actions (like downloading > software, books, etc.) that users in other parts of the > world take for granted. > > Anriette > > > > > > > >> Hi Folks >> >> I am reading through the thread here and I am smiling. The issues >> being raised here, we have raised them a million times. But I >> still believe that experience is the best teacher. Analysts can >> say what they want, but living in the situation is worth a million >> analyses. >> >> Two weeks ago, I was in 5 town in Burkina Faso to do an evaluation >> of the pilot projects that the Digital Solidarity Fund is >> supporting. >> >> In truth, electricity alone is not the only problem. But problems >> are not the only things that I saw. I also saw hope, optimism and >> a strong will power to rise beyond problems. >> >> There are options - Satelite is one of them. Solar power is one of >> them. Community access points too. In a far away village called >> Ouahigouya - the DSF has provided a Satellite Internet connection. >> In that center alone, the Internet is being offered to the public. >> They have video conferencing equipment and telemedicine is a >> reality. I was surprised that the cybercafé ran on Open Source >> Software and that local people are well adapted to it. >> >> In that same town, I slept in a hotel that was using solar panels >> for power. >> >> I am not speaking about what can happen. I am saying what has >> already happened. >> >> Cheers >> >> Nnenna >> >> Lee McKnight wrote: Bertrand, David, >> >> Not to be a naive utopian, but there are a wide variety of >> technological and business model alternatives being explored within >> Africa and elsewhere, and yeah by the usual suspect major >> multinationals, as well as start-ups and non-profits like One Laptop >> Per Child. >> >> So assuming cel phones/mobile Internet devices will have the same >> constraints for Internet access for long in Africa or anywhere else is >> probably not safe; paying for and powering infrastructure, ah there's >> the rub. But still alternatives are emegring. >> >> Lee >> >> Prof. Lee W. McKnight >> School of Information Studies >> Syracuse University >> +1-315-443-6891office >> +1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >>>>> bdelachapelle at gmail.com 9/12/2007 4:11 AM >>> >> (Sorry, I hit the send button inadvertently on the previous post >> before it was finished) >> >> Hi David, >> >> You mentionned this quote : >> "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the internet, in spite of the >> proliferation of ICT in the country, due to cost. Many more Ghanaians >> have access to mobile telephony than they have access to the >> internet." >> >> And said : >> >> Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of Africa >> could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart phones...), and so >> planning on governance issues probably should be done with this in >> mind. >> >> This development of mobile telephony in africa and the relatively >> slower penetration of other modes of Internet access is an important >> element because the business models for both are very different. >> >> At the moment, mobile telephony can be very profitable even in poor >> countries because a brief phone call can save a day trip to another >> village or town. Therefore, even if the cost per minute is high, the >> replacement cost is even higher. But this will mean that the priority >> of business actors will be on mobile phone networks rather than on >> general Internet access with cheap monthly fees. Using market forces >> to develop connectivity is certainly positive and is going to work, >> but one can wonder if it will be enough to bring the normal Internet >> Access, and particularly broadband (the second dimension of the >> digital divide). >> >> If mobile telephony becomes the main communication channel, will that >> not mean that Internet access will remain much rarer and more >> expensive in these countries ? >> >> I wonder if the Access session in the Rio IGF will address this point. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On 9/12/07, David Goldstein wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've just finished reading an article in The Economist - >>> Electricity in Africa: The dark continent. See >>> http://economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9660077. >>> >>> This had me thinking back to a discussion here recently on ICT in >>> Africa. The article notes "Africa accounts for over a sixth of the >>> world's population, but generates only 4% of global electricity. >>> Three-quarters of that is used by South Africa, Egypt and the other >>> countries along the north African littoral." >>> >>> Other points made are "Only 6% of Congolese have access to >>> electricity and more power will be needed to get at the country's >>> trove of minerals. ... Aggreko, a company based in Scotland, is the >>> world's biggest supplier of temporary electricity in the shape of >>> back-up generators. It meets up to 50% of Uganda's power needs, and >>> 10% of those of Kenya and Tanzania. It believes that the global >>> power shortfall in the next decade will be much greater than >>> predicted, perhaps over 500,000MW. The ensuing competition for >>> energy, it argues, will see the world split between those countries >>> whose economies grow faster than their power consumption and those, >>> including most of Africa, whose power consumption grows faster than >>> their economies." >>> >>> There are obviously huge issues in just providing power to much of >>> Africa before the vast majority of the population can even be >>> connected to the internet. And then with a global shortfall of >>> power, where does that leave the ongoing development of ICT? >>> >>> For those interested in ICT in Africa, I was sent a link to an >>> article on Ghana (thanks Kwasi) - Ghana's internet growth slowed by >>> high cost. See http://myjoyonline.com/features/200709/8441.asp. >>> >>> The article starts, "Most Ghanaians do not have access to the >>> internet, in spite of the proliferation of ICT in the country, due >>> to cost. Many more Ghanaians have access to mobile telephony than >>> they have access to the internet." >>> >>> Reading this, it means the future of internet access in much of >>> Africa could be via handheld devices (mobile phones, smart >>> phones...), and so planning on governance issues probably should be >>> done with this in mind. But then, a handheld device of any sort >>> still needs electricity to work. Even if the device can be powered >>> by some form of wind-up mechanism, for example, the infrastructure >>> still needs to b developed, and powered. >>> >>> Anyway, something to think about. >>> >>> Cheers >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no better mission for humans than uniting >> humans") ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> --------------------------------- >> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your >> story. >> Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Sep 17 04:11:51 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:41:51 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070917081156.AFC23A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> > How would we find them and bring them to Rio? How > do we find a neutral, informed person (or > persons)? Why don’t we try MAG members since it appears they aren’t going to speak. And they already do so many 'neutral' functions :). That’s one idea which comes to my mind. One can be neutral when called to a duty of neutrality, and there are sufficient number of people who we know can do so. I myself am very much against journalists moderating. I don’t see them do a good work in terms of what is the real purpose and occasion of IGF meetings. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > At 8:47 AM +0530 9/17/07, Parminder wrote: > > > If you know the names of people who will be > >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a > >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't > >> see any point in taking time to discuss names > >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to > >> Rio. > >> > >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting > >> union brought them and I guess paid. > >> > >> Adam > > > >Are we struck with journalists doing the moderations. I thought there was > a > >lot of criticism of such a format at Athens. > > > I think they will be used again. If you look back > at the stocktaking session, the moderators were > generally well received (see synthesis paper of > comments, and transcript.) There was one major > criticism (Riaz) of a mistake. > > There's been very little discussion of the > modalities of the meeting -- one of the things > overlooked while the advisory group was in > waiting on the secretary general's office. > Should have been discussed in more detail in May. > I don't remember seeing any concrete proposal > describing how to better moderate the sessions, > there were a lot of comments about ensuring the > moderators were better prepared. > > If moderators are used, we know they need better > briefing on issues, and all except the person > doing critical Internet resources will have > chance to attend three workshops on their theme > before the session. Moderators and panelists > will need time together to prepare (should be > easier when the panels are smaller.) Other ideas > to support the moderators are being discussed. > > > >Can't we have moderators who > >are more tuned in to the issues. > > > How would we find them and bring them to Rio? How > do we find a neutral, informed person (or > persons)? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >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: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:56 PM > >> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF > >> > >> At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> >Should we make also proposals for moderators? > >> >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the > >> >issue from developing countries? South African > >> >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, > >> >TV Globo? > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> If you know the names of people who will be > >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a > >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't > >> see any point in taking time to discuss names > >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to > >> Rio. > >> > >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting > >> union brought them and I guess paid. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 17 04:31:39 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:31:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Hi, I'd like to add a few of names, Izumi Aizu and Katitza Rodriguez Pereda to the list of possible speakers for Security and and Roberto Bissio for Emerging Issues. Both will be in Rio. Katitza Rodriguez Pereda, Peru. Working on EPIC/Privacy International Privacy and Human Rights report Roberto Bissio, Uruguay, journalist, executive director of The Third World Institute Izumi --think we all know well. Izumi's been working on projects looking at governance of CERT/CSIRT, and global network and information security policy. Izumi might also be considered for critical Internet resources. (Japanese, will be in Rio.) 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Sep 17 04:34:51 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:34:51 +0900 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070917081156.AFC23A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070917081156.AFC23A6C23@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: There have been suggestions that the journalists might work with an issue expert -- that expert might be MAG member (or whoever seemed best.) I think the journalists can perform a good role in drawing out the audience questions and keeping things flowing, but advice on who to call on for comment, when to move to a new topic or what topic would be a logical next step, might come from the expert. Deciding on who the expert might be for each session wouldn't be easy. And this is just and idea at the moment, no one has mentioned on the advisory group list yet. Better briefings will be a great help. Adam At 1:41 PM +0530 9/17/07, Parminder wrote: > > How would we find them and bring them to Rio? How >> do we find a neutral, informed person (or >> persons)? > >Why don’t we try MAG members since it appears they aren’t going to speak. >And they already do so many 'neutral' functions :). That’s one idea which >comes to my mind. > >One can be neutral when called to a duty of neutrality, and there are >sufficient number of people who we know can do so. > >I myself am very much against journalists moderating. I don’t see them do a >good work in terms of what is the real purpose and occasion of IGF meetings. > > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:26 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: RE: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF >> >> At 8:47 AM +0530 9/17/07, Parminder wrote: >> > > If you know the names of people who will be >> >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a >> >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't >> >> see any point in taking time to discuss names >> >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to >> >> Rio. >> >> >> >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting >> >> union brought them and I guess paid. >> >> >> >> Adam >> > >> >Are we struck with journalists doing the moderations. I thought there was >> a >> >lot of criticism of such a format at Athens. >> >> >> I think they will be used again. If you look back >> at the stocktaking session, the moderators were >> generally well received (see synthesis paper of >> comments, and transcript.) There was one major >> criticism (Riaz) of a mistake. >> >> There's been very little discussion of the >> modalities of the meeting -- one of the things >> overlooked while the advisory group was in >> waiting on the secretary general's office. >> Should have been discussed in more detail in May. >> I don't remember seeing any concrete proposal >> describing how to better moderate the sessions, >> there were a lot of comments about ensuring the >> moderators were better prepared. >> >> If moderators are used, we know they need better >> briefing on issues, and all except the person >> doing critical Internet resources will have >> chance to attend three workshops on their theme >> before the session. Moderators and panelists >> will need time together to prepare (should be >> easier when the panels are smaller.) Other ideas >> to support the moderators are being discussed. >> >> >> >Can't we have moderators who >> >are more tuned in to the issues. >> >> >> How would we find them and bring them to Rio? How >> do we find a neutral, informed person (or >> persons)? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >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: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:56 PM >> >> To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF >> >> >> >> At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > >> >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >> >> >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >> >> >issue from developing countries? South African >> >> >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >> >> >TV Globo? >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you know the names of people who will be >> >> attending, why not? But as it probably costs a >> >> lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't >> >> see any point in taking time to discuss names >> >> unless there's a realistic way of getting them to >> >> Rio. >> >> >> >> Last year I believe the european broadcasting >> >> union brought them and I guess paid. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Sep 17 04:37:25 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:37:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Upwardly Mobile In Africa References: <10577.42845.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <20070917072508.GA8265@nic.fr> Message-ID: <00af01c7f905$fec255d0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Thanks Stephane for this strong opinion on "wireless saving Africa's communications" ! I do share your views, particularly those expessed in your article (on your website) on the very reasons for Africa's failing infrastructure. As you, I'd want Africans being aware of this paramount and basic issue which is the main obstacle in real development. Moreover, general Infrastructure is on several agendas such as the Europe-Africa Summit to be held in Lisbon during next december an is theme of an european-african partnership project launched during the German presidency of the European council. However, the basics on infrastructure from civil works engineering to water and electricity supply but also the appropriate Data bases devising is left out in these approches, mostly because of the lack of educational capacity of people involved in these projects. Coming back to the info sent by David Goldstein, I think that these kinds of info are not only as many "ads", but serve mostly as an effective alibi for rich nations to limit their funding or spending on ODA ! And this is far more regrettable and destructive ! All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" To: "David Goldstein" Cc: "Governance Mailing List" Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: [governance] Re: Upwardly Mobile In Africa > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:33:05AM -0700, > David Goldstein wrote > a message of 42 lines which said: > >> Following on from the recent discussion on ICT in Africa, I found >> this article in Business Week today. > > It is just another on of the many ads for the mobile phone industry. > > About wireless in Africa, I wrote a small opinion (in French): > > http://www.bortzmeyer.org/sans-fil.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 > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10675 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From iza at anr.org Mon Sep 17 04:49:31 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:49:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: Thanks Adam for putting my name, and yes, most of you may not know, but I have been working on the study of network and information security policy issues. After CERT/CSIRTs we looked into the international cooperation framework, issues between national security and cyber security, the technical standardization process (NGN, IETF) on security. Now my focus is "Identity Management" of digital IdM, which is being discussed at ITU/NGN, but also condiered in many industry fora and policy areas. The voices from civil society in this important areas is relatively low and I like to raise that. many thanks, izumi 2007/9/17, Adam Peake : > Hi, > > I'd like to add a few of names, Izumi Aizu and Katitza Rodriguez > Pereda to the list of possible speakers for Security and and Roberto > Bissio for Emerging Issues. Both will be in Rio. > > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda, Peru. Working on EPIC/Privacy International > Privacy and Human > Rights report > > > Roberto Bissio, Uruguay, journalist, executive director of The Third > World Institute > > Izumi --think we all know well. Izumi's been working on projects > looking at governance of CERT/CSIRT, and global network and > information security policy. Izumi might also be considered for > critical Internet resources. (Japanese, will be in Rio.) > > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Mon Sep 17 05:34:07 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:34:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET In-Reply-To: <171582.79859.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> (message from kwasi boakye-akyeampong on Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:36:00 +0100 (BST)) References: <171582.79859.qm@web25505.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070917093407.0B6512201FD@quill.bollow.ch> kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who > think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my > apologies. > > - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even > - in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts > - (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts > - have made)? > > The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to > argue from but I need your opinions. How about a rating system from 0 to 10 e.g. as follows (with subdivisions between the points such as e.g. "0.5" when there is both widespread non-awareness and denial but nothing else happening) 0 - hardly anyone is aware of the need to address digital divide issues 1 - existence or importance of the main digital divide issues is denied 2 - some money is spend on addressing digital divide issues without any serious measurement and evaluation of results 3 - some serious efforts with evaluation of results are made, but there is no clarity about whether sufficient progress is made that it can be expected that with the current level of effort ans current strategies, the main "digital divide" problems will eventually get solved 4 - the fundamental economic causes of the "digital divide" problems are well-understood and adequate strategies for solving the problems have been developed and empirically verified 5 - adequate strategies for solving the problems have been politically accepted and adequate funding has been made available 6 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in some of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas at least serious efforts are made 7 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in most of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively addressed. 8 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in 90% of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively addressed. 9 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all of the areas under consideration, and strategies are being developed for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing 10 -not only have the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all of the areas under consideration, but also there are adequate strategies and programs in place (with adequate long-term assurance of funding) for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 06:25:52 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa Conference on FOSS and the Digital Commons - Idlelo 3. Call for Papers Message-ID: <57885.88532.qm@web50203.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Apologies for crossposting Nnenna ** High Priority ** Call for Papers Paper submissions are invited for Idlelo3 Conference, which will be taking place on the 16-20 March , 2008 in Senegal. Delegates who wish to present papers, case studies and workshops are invited to access this link: http://floss.meraka.org.za/ocs/index.php/idlelo3/idlelo3 which will serve as a guidelines for submission Deadline Schedule Abstract Submission 15 October 2007 Peer Review Result 15 November 2007 Abstract Accepted 14 December 2007 Final Paper 15February 2008 Instructions for Presenters Presentation materials must accompany all papers. The presentation material should compliment your full paper. Failure to submit a full paper will result in speaker benefits being withdrawn. Speaker Benefits All Idlelo 3 speakers have their conference registration fee waived. Note that it is important that you get your papers in by the due dates we reserve the right to withdraw the free registration if you do not get it in on time. If you are having problems meeting the deadlines, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can work with you to figure it out. If you are a student, please make sure that we know it. We may offer prize(s) for the best student paper submitted. Submission Guidelines Proposals Your proposal must include: Name, affiliation and address of principle author Brief biographical note, which summarises your CV and explains relevance of your experiences to the topic of your Paper. Full title of the Paper Abstract of the Paper, including a description of what you expect to cover (Maximum length 250 words) Target Audience, namely, who your talk is likely to interest (keywords indicating categories) Preferred stream for presentation Names and bio information of any co-authors Proposals acceptance Authors will be notified of the acceptance of their proposals by the 14 December 2007. Whilst we encourage many proposals, the constraints of time, resources and space dictate that only a restricted number of proposals will be accepted for presentation. We suggest that you communicate any information regarding your individual local requirements with them as soon as possible to ensure a swift response. Paper Submission All presenters are required to submit presentation materials by the specified date. Failure to do so may result in loss of your speaking slot and speaker benefits. Your full paper should include an abstract, introduction, body and conclusion. Please ensure that grammar and spelling is corrected. Make sure your paper includes at the very least a brief introduction to your subject material and a list of further resources. We would prefer that papers for standard length talks (30 minutes) be no more than 5 A4 pages of 11point type with reasonable margins. Papers for long talks (60 minutes) should be not exceed 10 pages. Appropriate file formats include any file that can be read with Open Office (which includes plain text and HTML with minimal mark-up). Slides (even those accompanied by speaker notes) will not be printed in the proceedings. Please provide a good range of sample paper layouts. By submitting a paper to be published in the proceedings, you are agreeing to the FOSSFA terms and regulations. Review results All papers will be reviewed to ensure that papers are of a high quality. The purpose is not to identify spelling or grammatical errors or to test code snippets, although errors may be corrected during the review if found. It is recommended that the presenters should read their papers thoroughly before submitting. Once your paper has been reviewed, the presenters will receive their results in order to make the requested improvements for the published version. Proceedings version A final copy of your paper will be printed in the conference proceedings. Contact details If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Pumeza Ceza at pceza at csir.co.za or Vanessa Phala vanessap at dpsa.gov.za Please note: Submissions for the abstracts are strictly on the 15 November 2007 FOSSFA reserves the right to select papers for presentation. Abstracts received will be acknowledged and notification of acceptance or rejection will be by email by 15 December 2007 Abstracts of papers submitted to other congresses or previously published will not be considered. No more than three submissions are welcome per presenter We urge presenters to please read the submission requirements carefully as we expect a high volume of presentations --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Sep 17 10:57:26 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:57:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF Message-ID: Hi, *If* Geoff Huston plans on attending RioIGF/07, I would like to nominate Geoff Huston for the Critical Internet Resources and DNSsec panel(s). Geoff is an accomplished "expert" in address allocation and his knowledge of the current cyberscape is an invaluable asset too discussions invovling CIR & DNSsec. He also hosts and maintains real-time reports on AS & IPv4 Address consumption. Report on consumption of AS Numbers. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns/index.html and Report on consumption of IPv4 numbers. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html He has published twenty (20) papers this year alone (2007), not including CIDR and IETF documentation, and presented at:JPNIC, RIPE 54, PAM, et. etc... http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/index.html Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 11:32:14 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:32:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <016e01c7f93f$ff9db550$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> As a matter of policy (and practicality) would it be possible that those who nominate someone be responsible for also determining whether they are available/willing to attend with their own funding? (My suggestion would be that those for whom this information is not provided not be considered for nomination. MG Michael Gurstein IGC: Rio IGF NomCom Committee Member -----Original Message----- From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] Sent: September 17, 2007 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Speakers for IGF Hi, *If* Geoff Huston plans on attending RioIGF/07, I would like to nominate Geoff Huston for the Critical Internet Resources and DNSsec panel(s). Geoff is an accomplished "expert" in address allocation and his knowledge of the current cyberscape is an invaluable asset too discussions invovling CIR & DNSsec. He also hosts and maintains real-time reports on AS & IPv4 Address consumption. Report on consumption of AS Numbers. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asns/index.html and Report on consumption of IPv4 numbers. http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/index.html He has published twenty (20) papers this year alone (2007), not including CIDR and IETF documentation, and presented at:JPNIC, RIPE 54, PAM, et. etc... http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/index.html Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance !DSPAM:2676,46ee973d86771018155779! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 17 13:31:36 2007 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:31:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070917173158.E5E37E1D49@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi. For Security, i would like to suggest Jeimy Cano (from Colombia) Jeimy Cano is one of the most important academic and practitioner in Informatics Forensic in LatinAmerica, past president of Colombian Association of Computer Engineers, specialist in security of Central Bank of Colombia. CV: http://www.criptored.upm.es/miembros/miembro_142.htm And i would like to suggest, i would like to suggest: Francisco Obispo, was chief of ccTLD .ve, ASO Member by LAC Region, : http://www.reacciun2.edu.ve/view/cv/cv_obispo.html Yours, Erick Iriarte Ahon Alfa-Redi At 03:31 a.m. 17/09/2007, you wrote: >Hi, > >I'd like to add a few of names, Izumi Aizu and Katitza Rodriguez >Pereda to the list of possible speakers for Security and and Roberto >Bissio for Emerging Issues. Both will be in Rio. > >Katitza Rodriguez Pereda, Peru. Working on EPIC/Privacy >International Privacy and Human >Rights report > > >Roberto Bissio, Uruguay, journalist, executive director of The Third >World Institute > >Izumi --think we all know well. Izumi's been working on projects >looking at governance of CERT/CSIRT, and global network and >information security policy. Izumi might also be considered for >critical Internet resources. (Japanese, will be in Rio.) > >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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 13:35:19 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:35:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET In-Reply-To: <20070917093407.0B6512201FD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <01b901c7f951$2805e290$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Norbert and all, can I suggest that we be rather more careful with our terminology... The term "Digital Divide" has become something of a "portmanteau" and tends to mean whatever the user wishes it to mean -- all the way from simple available access (the 5? kilometers from a pay telephone as the standard means for defining telephone access being transferred to something similar for the Internet) to various forms of "divides" being conflated within the Digital Divide notion (literacy divides, financial divides, disability divides etc.etc.) to actually being concerned with how the access is used. The term itself has been quite severely critiqued by myself http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html among others... (I choose to talk about "effective use", but others talk about "real use", "practical applications" and so on. In any case, and again, providing Internet or ICT access without the parallel availability of the range of supporting attributes by means of which this access can be translated into beneficial applications and uses is to my mind roughly the equivalent of saying "let them eat cake"... It seems to me finally, that the issue of simple "access" is one that might most usefully be left to the commercial and governmental stakeholders to advocate (the commercial folks deriving commercial benefits from this "access" and the governments gaining through such "access" the ability to cut costs without (in theory) reducing services), although we should of course support this. We as CS on the other hand, should be much more concerned to ensure that this "access" is turned into real benefits (effective uses) for those who are currently not receiving such benefits, while in many cases, at least indirectly, absorbing some of its costs. MG -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: September 17, 2007 2:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET e kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who > think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my apologies. > > - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even > - in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts > - (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts > - have made)? > > The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to argue > from but I need your opinions. How about a rating system from 0 to 10 e.g. as follows (with subdivisions between the points such as e.g. "0.5" when there is both widespread non-awareness and denial but nothing else happening) 0 - hardly anyone is aware of the need to address digital divide issues 1 - existence or importance of the main digital divide issues is denied 2 - some money is spend on addressing digital divide issues without any serious measurement and evaluation of results 3 - some serious efforts with evaluation of results are made, but there is no clarity about whether sufficient progress is made that it can be expected that with the current level of effort ans current strategies, the main "digital divide" problems will eventually get solved 4 - the fundamental economic causes of the "digital divide" problems are well-understood and adequate strategies for solving the problems have been developed and empirically verified 5 - adequate strategies for solving the problems have been politically accepted and adequate funding has been made available 6 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in some of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas at least serious efforts are made 7 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in most of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively addressed. 8 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in 90% of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively addressed. 9 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all of the areas under consideration, and strategies are being developed for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing 10 -not only have the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all of the areas under consideration, but also there are adequate strategies and programs in place (with adequate long-term assurance of funding) for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing 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 !DSPAM:2676,46ee493686771448911797! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Sep 17 14:08:21 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: 016e01c7f93f$ff9db550$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln Message-ID: Point well taken Michael, In respect to the individuals I extended an nomination, Karl & Geoff. I did so with the presumption that these two and many other individuals 'attend' internet events by means of their own unsubsidized-out-of-pocket-expense. As such I would give these people precedence in the opportunity to make their voices available on said panels. Their nominations have been made, and it is up to them to second and affirm their attendance commitment, or decline the nomination. - I'd like to take this moment to recognize a few individuals that have contributed to the 'internet conversation' over the years, and have made much ... if not all, of their contribution from self out-of-the-pocket expense. All though such an improv list cannot begin to recognize all of those who have given, including family of those involved. All have contributed to the 'glue' that has brought us here together: Danny Younger Peter and Karin Dambier Karl Auerbach Geoff Huston James Love Johannes J.Teernstra Sotiris Sotiropoulos Vivek Durai Erick Iriarte Ahon Kieren McCarthy - Bret Fausett - Susan Crawford [McCarthy Fausett & Crawford LLP ;-)] Edward Hasbrouck Adam Peake Richard Henderson Abel Wisman Joe Baptista etc. ... As my wife so often reminds me ... " We all live in a Yellow Submarine, a Yellow Submarine, a Yellow Submarine' ... We all live in a Yellow Submarine, a Yellow Submarine' ... ... ... Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Mon Sep 17 16:41:30 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:41:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > In respect to the individuals I extended an nomination, Karl & Geoff. Do you mean this Karl (the one whose fingers are typing this)? If so, thank you for the compliment. I am *very* interested. I am signed up for the meeting. But I need to get clearance from my doctor that it's OK for me to sit, effectively immobilized for those endless hours on an airplane. I should know by the middle of this week. As one might expect, my first concern and interest is the question: Where do individual people fit into the grand schemes of internet governance? (The flip side of that is the question why do we so quickly slide into the belief that th internet should be governed by privileged classes that we euphemistically call "stakeholders"?) My second concern is that IGF focus on a few, concrete real issues that can be resolved in a reasonable period of time. This is so that the bodies that evolve out of our discussions have a chance to succeed and gain that all-important first grain of acceptance and legitimacy. I don't think that the harder questions (which are often the more emotionally loaded and culturally inflected questions) will be resolved any more slowly if they are put on the back-burner while we take some time learn how to build institutions. For this reason I tend to suggest that we begin with a focus on those matters that are closely associated to internet technology and defer matters such as "free speech"; issues such as access might become non issues if we can oversee and gently govern a few aspects internet technology (such as end-to-end connectivity and service levels) so that it becomes ubiquitous and inexpensive. There are matters that do not fit well into my simple (naive?) taxonomy - is access to the net by the elderly, non-educated, or those with physical impairments something that is likely of early success (my sense is "yes") or something that ought to be deferred until we learn the art of institution building? My third concern is that IGF discussions not look at the internet through warped lenses - for example, we should not believe that anybody is presently handling or responsible for assuring that the side of DNS seen and used by internet users remains operationally stable, accurate, available, and unbiased. My forth concern, and perhaps my main intellectual interest, is how all of this fits into a historical context and how the institutions that develop will obtain legitimacy and authority. Just outside of my house are a group of small redwood seedling - some are only dozen cm tall. With luck, sunlight, fog, and rain they will grow to be among the tallest trees on earth (the tallest are over 120meters tall.) But that will take hundreds, even thousands of years. None of us expect instant redwoods. Similarly, none of us should expect instant acceptance or legitimacy of the institutions that are developed to govern aspects of the net - in the supranational context of the internet legitimacy can not be gifted from above; legitimacy will have to be earned by doing a good job over an extended period of time. Those of you who know me know that I'm not very diplomatic or politically subtle (or astute). I prefer the spicy language of the streets to the subtle nuances of governmental communiques. One person who knows me once said that I have an exceptional ability to pour gasoline onto a smoldering fire. > I did so with the presumption that these two and many other individuals > 'attend' internet events by means of their own > unsubsidized-out-of-pocket-expense. Can't speak for Geoff, but I was planning to cover my (and my wife's) own expenses. So much for for the days when ICANN jetted me around the world on business and first class tickets. ;-) --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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Sep 17 21:31:46 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' Message-ID: <574672.74650.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. Cheers David Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular networks. It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and education, as well as boosting the local economy. http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html --------- 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 Mon Sep 17 22:23:51 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:23:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> References: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> Message-ID: While I generally subscribe to most of Karl's comments, this one perked up my ears: At 1:41 PM -0700 9/17/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: ... issues >such as access might become non issues if we can oversee and gently >govern a few aspects internet technology (such as end-to-end >connectivity and service levels) so that it becomes ubiquitous and >inexpensive. This seems to discount the efforts by telcos and cable cos in the US explicitly trying to make Internet access more expensive (by abandoning open end-to-end and even eroding the market for flat-fee and unlimited-use service). How can this fly in the market in the US? Because broadband ISPs are no longer governed by open access/interconnection rules in the US (as remain in place many other places in the EU and elsewhere), and thus broadband ISP competition in the US is "suggestive" at best. In the US, the open access/interconnection policy is determined by the FCC under the authority of the Telecom Act which has been primed for re-hashing since last year or earlier. And the FCC and legislature are heavily lobbied by the ISPs to influence regulatory policy in this area. In short, it is hard for me to see how "we" (who is "we" anyway?) could "oversee and gently govern" anything in the area of end-to-end and service levels, at least in the US. There's nothing "gentle" about it whatsoever, unfortunately. It's flat-out war. It was war last fall in the last congress when the Republicans were in the majority and the net neutrality movement had to fight Ted Stevens' ("Senator Tubes") bill, and it remains a fierce struggle this time around because the Democrats have not moved on it since January (the Senate NN bill has few co-sponsors and remains stuck in committee, while the House bill hasn't even been introduced as Ed Markey promised). FreePress.net is gearing up for a big constituent push for this fall, because next year is presidential election year and things generally come to a stop. It will take the mobilization of a huge, active and vocal grass roots constituency to get this on the agenda before the end of the year. IGF in November will be too late to address anything in this cycle. Besides, what political authority could possibly impact national regulation of this sort? Some of these issues cannot wait for a global authority to emerge, and must be addressed immediately in national or more local jurisdictions. Voluntary technical standards can easily be ignored by private firms. Remember when Netscape simply built whatever HTML functionality it wanted into its browsers, W3C and IETF be damned? When M$FT polluted Java with proprietary hooks in its mission to undermine the "middleware" threat to its OS market power? Now Cisco is building routers for clients who want smart pipes, not for any standards body that is concerned with open end-to-end dumb pipes. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, unless the law weighs in on it. Gentle oversight will be set aside. Also, "access" requires attention to availability of hardware/software (and maintenance/upgrade budgets), user training, and locally-relevant content as a motivation to get over the biggest hurdles at the outset of customer penetration in tech markets. Open network standards are necessary but not sufficient to systematically ensure broad or universal access. So I don't think that ensuring end-to-end and reasonable service levels will automatically ensure "digital inclusion" (as it is referred to in the US these days, among local advocates for universal access) in a meaningful way, all by itself. Oh, I *wish* these could be gentle oversight. But I don't see anything gentle about the political wars we are going to continue to have surrounding Internet architecture and deployment. The political and commercial stakes are too high, and the public and commercial powers are too strong. They will ignore us or co-opt us, but they will not leave us alone. That's it for now. Since I won't be able to get to Rio myself, I guess this is my chance to engage the discussion... ;-) 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 05:56:54 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:56:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' In-Reply-To: <574672.74650.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <574672.74650.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not bothered Aaron On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > Cheers > David > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular networks. > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and education, as well as boosting the local economy. > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > --------- > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 18 06:04:19 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:04:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' Message-ID: <58647.77748.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we like it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of corporations is important in addressing humanitarian issues and those that involve assisting development of either less developed countries or people in need of assistance (for want of a better description), whether they have a disability or homeless or poor. Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for example, it's most likely part of your involvement will involve what you are good at. You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is no socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more popular in both developed countries and less developed countries. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' David In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not bothered Aaron On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > Cheers > David > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular networks. > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and education, as well as boosting the local economy. > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > --------- > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 18 08:28:02 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:58:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070918122820.6A598E1D2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> > That's it for now. Since I won't be able to get to Rio myself, I guess > this is my chance to engage the discussion... ;-) And a good and important discussion it is. I think Karl's views and those expressed by Dan here best capture in the spectrum over which IG discussion must take place. Because I see same or similar 'progressive' concern for public interest, and need to make structural changes to the status quo which favours dominant classes. It always is so, so the 'progressive' efforts will and should go on always, only the context and practical steps needed may change. Karl trusts that if we keep out political principles simple and clear (a neutral equality of the net to everyone and everything - the end-to-end principle), and also minimal at present, and seek out best technical solutions for them, the 'progressive' cause will gain most. Times of strong technology ferment needs relative freedom from partisan politics to show up its highest potential, and the new technologies especially tend to provide the 'edges' better control over the 'centre' only if we leave out too much motivated interference. Dan thinks that it is difficult to so freeze politics, since the dominant classes won't relent, and will keep at it, eroding 'public interest' further. So the battle has to be fought mostly in political arenas. So long as the a keen commitment to furthering public interest interpreted in a 'progressive' manner is maintained, and there is readiness to take the difficult path of challenging status-quos, with a healthy suspicion of and entrenched power structures (governments, for instance, but also ICANN, if it shows such tendencies), it is possible to together find working strategies and practical tactics even while differing in important ways. Our proposed IGF workshop on 'governance frameworks for CIR' will seek to do so, though one suspects that however fair and logical one tries to be, some people are prone to seeing any such framing of issues as conspiratorial. Substantively, I am more inclined to Dan's way of looking at things, but then Karl comes from a more technical background and I cant set up my mail client myself, and am more comfortable with social and political discourses and in working at developmental field projects. My problem with the present way of governance of CIRs, for instance, is not so much about what good or bad they directly yield (at least as yet), but with the strong, and even somewhat extreme, neo-liberal principles that underpins them. And entrenchment of such political principles at the heart of what are the first few strands of the imminently more and more pervasive global polity is for me very disturbing, and my resistance is directed against it. These developments influence and shape the very basis and manner in which our societies will evolve - from local to global levels, and the devastation caused in taking such directions of evolution will be much much more than many are ready to see and do something about. Just adding a third strand to the two put forward by Karl and Dan (and apologies if I paraphrase there views wrongly) 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: Dan Krimm [mailto:dan at musicunbound.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 7:54 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? > > While I generally subscribe to most of Karl's comments, this one perked up > my ears: > > At 1:41 PM -0700 9/17/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > ... issues > >such as access might become non issues if we can oversee and gently > >govern a few aspects internet technology (such as end-to-end > >connectivity and service levels) so that it becomes ubiquitous and > >inexpensive. > > > This seems to discount the efforts by telcos and cable cos in the US > explicitly trying to make Internet access more expensive (by abandoning > open end-to-end and even eroding the market for flat-fee and unlimited-use > service). > > How can this fly in the market in the US? Because broadband ISPs are no > longer governed by open access/interconnection rules in the US (as remain > in place many other places in the EU and elsewhere), and thus broadband > ISP > competition in the US is "suggestive" at best. In the US, the open > access/interconnection policy is determined by the FCC under the authority > of the Telecom Act which has been primed for re-hashing since last year or > earlier. And the FCC and legislature are heavily lobbied by the ISPs to > influence regulatory policy in this area. > > In short, it is hard for me to see how "we" (who is "we" anyway?) could > "oversee and gently govern" anything in the area of end-to-end and service > levels, at least in the US. There's nothing "gentle" about it whatsoever, > unfortunately. It's flat-out war. It was war last fall in the last > congress when the Republicans were in the majority and the net neutrality > movement had to fight Ted Stevens' ("Senator Tubes") bill, and it remains > a > fierce struggle this time around because the Democrats have not moved on > it > since January (the Senate NN bill has few co-sponsors and remains stuck in > committee, while the House bill hasn't even been introduced as Ed Markey > promised). > > FreePress.net is gearing up for a big constituent push for this fall, > because next year is presidential election year and things generally come > to a stop. It will take the mobilization of a huge, active and vocal > grass > roots constituency to get this on the agenda before the end of the year. > > IGF in November will be too late to address anything in this cycle. > Besides, what political authority could possibly impact national > regulation > of this sort? Some of these issues cannot wait for a global authority to > emerge, and must be addressed immediately in national or more local > jurisdictions. Voluntary technical standards can easily be ignored by > private firms. > > Remember when Netscape simply built whatever HTML functionality it wanted > into its browsers, W3C and IETF be damned? When M$FT polluted Java with > proprietary hooks in its mission to undermine the "middleware" threat to > its OS market power? > > Now Cisco is building routers for clients who want smart pipes, not for > any > standards body that is concerned with open end-to-end dumb pipes. Whoever > pays the piper calls the tune, unless the law weighs in on it. Gentle > oversight will be set aside. > > > Also, "access" requires attention to availability of hardware/software > (and > maintenance/upgrade budgets), user training, and locally-relevant content > as a motivation to get over the biggest hurdles at the outset of customer > penetration in tech markets. Open network standards are necessary but not > sufficient to systematically ensure broad or universal access. So I don't > think that ensuring end-to-end and reasonable service levels will > automatically ensure "digital inclusion" (as it is referred to in the US > these days, among local advocates for universal access) in a meaningful > way, all by itself. > > Oh, I *wish* these could be gentle oversight. But I don't see anything > gentle about the political wars we are going to continue to have > surrounding Internet architecture and deployment. The political and > commercial stakes are too high, and the public and commercial powers are > too strong. They will ignore us or co-opt us, but they will not leave us > alone. > > > That's it for now. Since I won't be able to get to Rio myself, I guess > this is my chance to engage the discussion... ;-) > > Dan > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 18 09:17:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:47:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] tick, tick, tick... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20070918131757.6602AE1D20@smtp3.electricembers.net> Adam It is a few days old email, but I thought I shd reply to it because it implicates my IGC co-coordinator role and responsibilities. > About the tradition -- all I can say is Jeanette > and I didn't speak at sessions, tried to steer > opportunities to others. Which sessions are you speaking of. IGF started last year, you weren't the co-coordinator, and there weren't any IGC nominations. In any case, I should inform you that I no longer am offering myself for speaking at main sessions at Athens. One of the two persons I contacted for speaking on the issues which were high-jacked off the agenda has agreed. The person is a senior member of an UN agency and has worked on the issues of pro-poor access and community based access models. Incidentally, the other one was Sean Siochru who is also on your list. However, he wont be coming to Rio. >When it comes to > consultations it often seems IT for Change has > comments in before the caucus. So perhaps it's a > matter of priorities? That's the main issue I seek to address. I don't understand what exactly do you mean here. Should IT for Change cease its advocacy work since I am the caucus co-coordinator. Is it a condition of taking up coordinator-ship? But no real organization is going to give up its core work because one of its members becomes a co-coordinator This will mean only individuals with no organisational affiliations, or at least, presence in the IG arena with any sort of views, can become a co-coordinator. Do you mean to propose such a criterion for IGC co-coordinators? I see few if anyone from the South who will meet this requirement. And I know when you read IT for Change you think me, and that is really not my fault. IT for Change has an important presence in local, national and global levels - in projects, research and advocacy. And our positions are consistent across our activities as they emerge from them. These views and positions are publicly available for others to hold us accountable as well, since we live off public money. And we are responsible and accountable to our members, out partners, funders and such stakeholders... Which is much more than can be said of views and positions of individuals actors in this arena (nothing against them, but since there seems to be a position against organisational actors and the way they act, I am using this argument). Is it not better to put out written views and positions and be accountable to them rather than push individual politics through a variety of means while appearing neutral, whatever it means in a political arena. I strive to balance my responsibilities in IT for Change and that of caucus coordinator, and I wont agree to your suggestion that I am not doing it well. Of course you have a right to say so, and seek accountability. Here above is my response. Which is more than I have seen with regard to frequent requests on this list on improving the information flow to the list from IGC MAG members nominated to the selection process by the IGC - not only of process issues, but also on more substantive matters. And now even the UN Secretary General has shown impatience with the flow of information to stkaeholders. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:37 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] tick, tick, tick... > > Parminder, quick reply more later perhaps. Jetlag. > > About the tradition -- all I can say is Jeanette > and I didn't speak at sessions, tried to steer > opportunities to others. When it comes to > consultations it often seems IT for Change has > comments in before the caucus. So perhaps it's a > matter of priorities? > > About the access issues you're concerned about. > Odd you think they came from IT for Change. See > part of an email I sent to the MAG list in June, > I thought I wrote the now deleted items. I am > also unhappy they are gone, and I may well have > screwed up last week, plus I had to leave early > and didn't see the final draft of the access > session. But the items are a guide not rule. I > expect each session will later have a written > description and I will try to get those issue > back in. > > It's not helpful you always so aggressively negative about people's > motives. > > Adam > > email comments on an earlier draft of the program: > > > >Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 23:58:54 +0900 > >From: Adam Peake > >Subject: [igf_members] thoughts on Access session and sub-themes > > > >About the access session and sub themes. > > > >It would be a good opportunity to include some national case studies, > >national-level multi-stakeholder initiatives influencing the policy > >process (I mentioned some examples in earlier email. This was a key > >part of APC's contribution to the last consultation and I thought > >very useful and relevant.) Case studies would introduce some "real" > >issues and problems for the panel/audience to keep in mind. Might > >also be an opportunity to have one or more of the Best Practise > >sessions focus on access related activities. > > > > From the bullets in the Draft Program under access, suggest, in > priority: > > > >1. Regulatory frameworks tailored to local conditions [, in > >particular towards improving access in rural areas.] and the effect > >of regional infrastructure and regulation on Internet connectivity > >costs and access to the Internet. > > > >(this combines two bullets) > > > >2. Market and non-market structures and their relationship to > >competition and investment in fostering innovation and alternative > >business models. > > > >(organize the session around problems/issues identified by specific > >stakeholder groups.) > > > >3. Public infrastructure and the respective roles and > >responsibilities of public and private finance in providing access. > > > >(re-words what's in the bullet in the draft.) > > > >4. International connectivity costs > > > >This is an important topic, but is IGF the best place to discuss it. > >It might be better as the subject of an "open" workshop. > > > >5. The role of governments as key stakeholders in ensuring an > >enabling environment to improve access. > > > >(this is true, but will be be able to openly talk about the barriers > >govt often create to an enabling environment?) > > > >So I suggest we make 1, 2, 3 the sub-theme workshops. List the rest > >an more as just other examples of issues thought important? > > > >Best, > > > >Adam > > > > > > > > At 9:49 PM +0530 9/10/07, Parminder wrote: > >Adam > > > >>and I think best > >> if the caucus coordinators also didn't > >> participate as panelists, that's also been a bit > >> of a tradition. > > > >I have no idea about this tradition. How and when was it established? And > to > >keep me informed, please also let me know of all others traditions > >associated with coordinator-ship - like being members of officially > >empowered committees and working groups where they speak for themselves, > and > >of holding positions in important IG institutions which themselves are > often > >important subjects of discussion etc etc :-) > > > >Abstinence of MAG members is entirely another matter because they are > >supposed to choose speakers, and this rule has self-evident > justification, > >and applies in every nomcom. > > > >I am not too eager to be a speaker, except for the fact that it is my > >organization that suggested the agenda of 'alternative business models > for > >access' and 'public and private finance for access' in the access theme > >which were on the agenda till this latest draft. And its removal without > >assigning any reason is most objectionable, and ideologically motivated, > >compromising the neutrality of whoever decides these issues. I want to > make > >sure that the access panel just doesn't one-sidedly parrot the neo- > liberal > >line of telecom, as it is obviously the intention of some powerful > parties. > >Removal of these issues is even more unjustifiable because they are from > the > >language adopted by WSIS. So much for upholding WSIS principles. > Obviously, > >what are useful WSIS principles and what are not, is itself decided by > some > >people on their own. > > > >I am in contact with a few experts in the area of community based/ owned > >access models (on which UNDP is doing a lot of work), but still not sure > if > >they will attend (such is the dominant scene at the IGF). I am trying my > >best to get them over and suggest them as speakers in the access panel... > If > >that doesn't happen, I am fine to make a general appeal to anyone who > will > >be at IGF and be willing to speak on this issue. If not, I would step up > and > >offer myself as a speaker for the access panel. > > > >Incidentally, while we are on the subject can I inquire of you, as a CS > >member of MAG, (and of others on the list) what criterion is used to > remove > >such perfectly balanced agenda items as have been removed from the > 'access' > >agenda theme? Was there any opposition? What is your personal opinion on > >this? Or is access important only as promotion of telecom market models > of > >MNCs, and alternative do not count, even as an item for discussion? Or is > >such 'hair-splitting' in the area of 'access' just not important, and > access > >topic is good only to be used as a counterfoil to CIR issue? > > > >Since you have freely suggested traditions for co-coordinators, I think > it > >will also be good to set up traditions of IGC nominated MAG members > replying > >to questions on IGC list that relate directly to their MAG work. > > > >Best > > > >Parminder > > > > > > > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change, Bangalore > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > >www.ITforChange.net > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 09:28:12 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio Message-ID: <928607.56434.qm@web50205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi people I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time constraints. Here are my quick 'tots Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of "them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno longer be what others should do but what you can do. On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic infrastructure and social stability. Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning from NGOs to governments... On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting. I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity Cheers Nnenna --------------------------------- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 18 09:50:07 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio Message-ID: <318438.75209.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Nnenna, There is probably not a clear view on the success or otherwise of funding projects from the first to the third world. Some work, some don't and some are in between. But while we in the first world probably don't understand this as well as we could, I don't think you really understand what CSR is about. I see no evidence of CSR being about greed on a large scale. The points you made on this no doubt have varying degrees of applicability depending on the funder, and this can also be determined in part by whether it goes through a foundation or not. One could easily argue that the problems are as much if not more the fault of the regimes in varying countries, how the programmes within these countries are set up and obstacles placed in the path of implementing programmes. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nnenna To: Governance Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 11:28:12 PM Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio Hi people I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time constraints. Here are my quick 'tots Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of "them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno longer be what others should do but what you can do. On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic infrastructure and social stability. Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning from NGOs to governments... On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting. I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity Cheers Nnenna Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 18 10:19:38 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:49:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for the next GAID Steering Committeemeeting (NY, 19 September 2007) In-Reply-To: <200709141842.l8EIgw5W007125@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <20070918141945.10F89E1D16@smtp3.electricembers.net> Thanks for this information, Philippe, Generally, there seem to be some improvement in the tenor and language of GAID document, and we hope that will continue. Both connectivity and financing are important issues- at the base of ICTD and it is good that they are in. On connectivity - I am somewhat intrigued (though not much :-) ) by the reference to 'with the intention of taking a global view of connectivity issues in developing' A global policy view on this matter is very much required, but I hope this global view is not only of the multi-national telecom corporate view - which may have its place. But it is good if policies for connectivity and access can again be brought on to the global policy agenda. On Financing ICTD - again, this subject very much needs to be on global agenda. But an exclusive reliance on what may be called as 'innovative financing' should not be seen as against traditional forms of development financing which is through global and national public funds. The balance needs to be kept, and in a review meeting for UN Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development, these policy and political economy issues will be important, as will be new or innovative forms of financing. GAID may not inadvertently side too much on what can, if not moderated, be the wrong side of the policy debate, compromising opportunities for development for most people. Meanwhile in the steering committee meeting report I see the term 'world ICT week'. Interesting. I haven't heard that before. I much prefer 'information society week' which I think is the official term. Just a couple of things that occurred to me. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 12:14 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Preparations for the next GAID Steering Committeemeeting (NY, 19 September 2007) Importance: High 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 12:24:01 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:24:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' In-Reply-To: <58647.77748.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e201c7fa10$62cef6e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Without getting into the other aspects of your note below, David (should we really be discussing those more general issues here), I think the most pertinent question for this list and overall for CS in the context of the IGF is whether Corporate Social Responsibility and those involved in this should rightly be included within CS (from a stakeholder perspective) or within the Corporate/private sector grouping... My understanding in fact is that many of those active in the private sector grouping around the IGF see this as an element of their overall CSR activities/responsibilities so including them within the CS aspect would surely be redundant and inappropriate. MG -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: September 18, 2007 3:04 AM To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we like it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of corporations is important in addressing humanitarian issues and those that involve assisting development of either less developed countries or people in need of assistance (for want of a better description), whether they have a disability or homeless or poor. Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for example, it's most likely part of your involvement will involve what you are good at. You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is no socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more popular in both developed countries and less developed countries. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' David In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not bothered Aaron On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads > for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > Cheers > David > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of > the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 > villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular > networks. > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and > education, as well as boosting the local economy. > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > --------- > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance !DSPAM:2676,46efa2cb86778437780003! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Tue Sep 18 13:36:37 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:36:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: References: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46F00CA5.5070507@cavebear.com> Dan Krimm wrote: > ... issues >> such as access might become non issues if we can oversee and gently >> govern a few aspects internet technology (such as end-to-end >> connectivity and service levels) so that it becomes ubiquitous and >> inexpensive. > This seems to discount the efforts by telcos and cable cos in the US > explicitly trying to make Internet access more expensive (by abandoning > open end-to-end and even eroding the market for flat-fee and unlimited-use > service). Let me explain my sense of the word "gentle" - I didn't mean something that is lacking compelling force. I'm helping to restore a 1923 mainline steam locomotive and sometimes we have to "gently" coerce a bolt to turn - often with a 16# sledge hammer and a gasoline torch. The gentleness comes from the fact that the force is applied with care; but that bolt *will* turn (else we drag out the cutting torch.) What distinguishes institutions of governance from ordinary institutions is that governance bodies are entrusted with extraordinary coercive powers. These powers can be applied as blunt instruments, a la ICANN, or can be applied with finesse and discretion. I consider the latter to be "gentle". But like my 16# sledge - either way, the object the coercive power is expected to conform, else even stronger measures are warranted. Now, in the area of the end-to-end principle I agree that here in the US the telco/cable duopoly is using all means fair, and more often foul, to obliterate any and all threats to their position and profits. Their behaviour is outrageous. But the answer to that is not a blanket statement that differential pricing or differential serves are banned on the net - that would be non gentle, and also a failure to recognize that some net services (e.g. low jitter transport of packets) does incur real costs (such as leaving links underutilized so that they have the capacity to handle traffic bursts, or doing the complex work of traffic engineering.) A "gentle" kind of governance would be something that tries to find guiding principles and finds the right balance. It's sort of the difference between the way a skilled diamond cutter might find the plane of cleavage and split the crystal with a gentle tap versus the way I might smash the diamond with a blow from my 16# sledge - either way the diamond is partitioned, but the results of the former method are usually more beautiful. Yes, politics can resemble war without blood and physical mayhem. Which is yet another reason why I cringe when the word "stakeholder" is used, as that is a phrase that gives power and authority to some groups, typically industrial interests, and diminishes the power and authority of those who don't receive the mantle of stakholderhood. And yes, I agree we are building political institutions for the internet; they will not be free of strong interests and minipulative methods of expressing those interests. The 18th century had a lot of smart people thinking about how to handle that kind of thing. We should make sure that any institutions we build incorporate the ideas of those people. I often use this as my prototype of the kind of problem we should take up as one of our first concrete issues of internet governance: Suppose that someone (a country, a corporation, a school, a person) wants to make a VoIP call that will span many providers (for example a call from an African nation to one in North America). VoIP does not require a lot of bandwidth, but it does need low delay and not a lot of variation of that delay (i.e. low jitter). So how does that someone say "I would like to buy [yes, I assume that the transfer of money may be required] 64K bit/sec connectivity with low delay, low jitter for the duration of my phone call."? And how is that request manifested into the reality of an assurance (not a guarantee) of such an end-to-end path? To my mind that is a complex enough topic, rich in troubles, rich in technology, and rich in economic pressures, to form a good case for internet governance, but one that is simple enough to be solved, perhaps albeit, with the cooperation of technology creators and standards bodies. > Now Cisco is building routers for clients who want smart pipes, not for any > standards body that is concerned with open end-to-end dumb pipes. Even though my comment here is off topic, this is something near and dear to me. I was at Cisco, part of the Advanced Internet Architectures Group. My personal project (aside from network video - I wrote the thing that is trademarked "IP/TV") was "smart networks". This was a control plan for the net that fed service level agreements (much like my VoIP phone call example previously in this message) into a modeling system that resulted in router provisioning by goals (rather than tweeking individual control parameters) and giving routers some degree of autonomy to locally adapt within defined constraints. When those constraints could not be met, an exception kicked out to troubleshooting systems. This was hardly the kind of fully dumb pipe network that many think the internet should be. But, being the grandson of a radio repairman and the son of a TV repairman, and myself being often a network repairman, it is my strong contention that the internet is very weak on monitoring, management, fault detection and isolation, and repair. I am very aware of, and very much believe in David Isenberg's "stupid network" - http://www.isen.com/stupid.html. (Also see my paper at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/Barnstorming-to-Boeing.ppt with the accompanying notes at http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/Barnstorming-to-Boeing.pdf) What Cisco is doing, I believe, is recognizing this weakness, not to mention the near stasis of the IETF in these areas, and responding. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Sep 18 14:21:39 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:21:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] TR: URGENT - Closure of the NGO ICTRC Office in Tehran - Last call for signature (deadline: 24 September) Message-ID: <200709181821.l8IIL1on000974@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, As you know, the attached petition letter is circulated among NGOs having participated in WSIS in support to the NGO ICTRC, which offices in Tehran have been closed down and the staff prevented to work more than 6 months ago. The coordinators of this initiative are now willing to address this letter soon to the authorities. Send the signature of your organisation or if preferred in your personal capacity at wsis at ngocongo.org. Deadline: 24 September 2007. We received a number of signatures so far, but much more is needed from among those who worked with Mr. Amir Barmaki and Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi throughout the WSIS process. And feel free to circulate this petition to other interested NGOs. All the best, Philippe _____ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : jeudi, 30. août 2007 18:20 À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc : rbloem at ngocongo.org; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : RE: Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Dear all, In follow up to our previous exchanges in the regards, note that the NGO support letter against the closure of the ICTRC Offices in Tehran has been changed in accordance with the various suggestions made on the Plenary List. Find the updated letter and the provisional list of signatures received from this list attached. We understood that the situation for ICTRC staff has not evolved since the last up date. NGOs involved in the WSIS process are encouraged to consider signing this letter ASAP. Individuals involved in WSIS are also encouraged to add their support to our colleagues from the ICTRC, even if they are not up to engaging their organisation. All the best, Ph _____ De : CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam [mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org] Envoyé : mercredi, 11. juillet 2007 18:53 À : 'plenary at wsis-cs.org'; 'bureau at wsis-cs.org'; 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Cc : 'rbloem at ngocongo.org'; 'CONGO - Philippe Dam' Objet : Closure of ICTRC Office in Tehran - Letter for support open for signature Importance : Haute Dear all, A couple of months ago, I forwarded an e-mail received from our WSIS colleague Mr. Sohrab Razzaghi, announcing that the office of the NGO he is the Executive Director of was closed and sealed by the Revolutionary Court without any legal justification or accusations. Apparently the situation has not evolved and that the staff was prevented to work. This is of particular concern for all of us because the focal points for West Asia and the Middle East within the Civil Society Bureau during the WSIS preparatory phase were member of the ICTRC. A group of NGOs have drafted a support letter regretting the closure of the ICTRC office and asking for clarification to the Iranian Authorities. You are invited to consider signing this support letter. I particularly encourage all formerly CSB members to look into it, in support for our partners during the WSIS process. I’ll be happy to forward your signatures to the coordinators of this initiative. All the best, Philippe Philippe Dam CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Support Letter ICTRC - Sept 07(2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Sep 18 14:54:53 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:54:53 -0700 Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio In-Reply-To: <318438.75209.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <318438.75209.qm@web54111.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Just a quick comment on CSR and its limits. CSR is driven my market forces (demand, regulation, technology -- all integrated with the profit motive). The reason CSR is so hot these days is specifically because CS worked so hard for so long to bring commonwealth issues onto the public agenda, both in raw propagation of "social norms" and in formal regulation in the public sector. This creates demand for CSR inside the market, and thus it is now good business to respond to it. But make no mistake: this would *not* have happened without efforts by CS *outside* the market per se (advocacy, activism, policy analysis). And predictably, CSR is still not inclined to *lead* on these issues even now. Anything that has not already established itself in market forces or explicit regulation is still not seriously on the table for CSR generally (SR consultants will be the first to push back against anything that presents a risk to their corporate clients -- this is still about bottom line profits and perhaps long-term commercial sustainability). CSR is about "digesting" the movements that CS initiated and pushed, and occasionally got written into law or treaty. CS is the clear leader here, with the for-profit and public sectors following the resulting sea change (with the stipulation that new laws symbiotically help to support the evolution of social norms, and ultimately all of these dynamics reinforce each other in causal terms). Dan At 6:50 AM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: >Nnenna, > >There is probably not a clear view on the success or otherwise of funding >projects from the first to the third world. Some work, some don't and some >are in between. But while we in the first world probably don't understand >this as well as we could, I don't think you really understand what CSR is >about. > >I see no evidence of CSR being about greed on a large scale. The points >you made on this no doubt have varying degrees of applicability depending >on the funder, and this can also be determined in part by whether it goes >through a foundation or not. > >One could easily argue that the problems are as much if not more the fault >of the regimes in varying countries, how the programmes within these >countries are set up and obstacles placed in the path of implementing >programmes. > >David > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Nnenna >To: Governance >Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 11:28:12 PM >Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio > >Hi people > >I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time >constraints. Here are my quick 'tots > >Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a >prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it >wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of >"them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet >connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are >already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno >longer be what others should do but what you can do. > >On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT >infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been >roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free >Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to >realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic >infrastructure and social stability. > >Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and >all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of >capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing >countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to >others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate >body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always >have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it >is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently >they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others >from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning >from NGOs to governments... > >On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this >list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it >saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be >good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes >already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that >need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who >will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the >fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting. > >I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he >will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity > >Cheers > >Nnenna > > >Check >out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > > > >Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. >Get >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Tue Sep 18 14:42:23 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:42:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAID Global Forum on Youth and ICTD - 24-26 September, Geneva (CICG) Message-ID: <200709181841.l8IIfi6S000896@smtp2.infomaniak.ch> Dear all, Find below the latest up-dates about the organisation of the up-coming Global Forum for Youth and ICTD, organised by GAID and partners in Geneva on 24-26 September 2007. On line registration is now closed, but additional registrations could be done through the attached registration form. In last option, registrations will also be processed on site. . Global Forum Website: http://un-gaid.org/fr/gfyouth . Provisional programme: http://www.un-gaid.org/fr/gfyouth/agenda All the best, Philippe Global Forum on Youth and ICTD (24-26 September 2007, CICG, Geneva) The Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are organizing a Global Forum on Youth and ICT for Development: Youth and ICT as Agents of Change, that will help harness the creativity and dynamism that the youth has in exploring and exploiting ICT for their own benefit and for the benefit of their peers and communities in advancement of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The Forum aims at actively engaging youth in debates and discussions with their peer representatives, policy makers, private sector, technology and thought leaders and others in exploring ways to empower the community and to participate more fully in society through the appropriate and responsible use of ICT. Interested participants are requested to return the attached registration form at Ms. Rosalinda Sanchez GAID Secretariat Fax: +(1-917) 367-4340 Email: sanchez2 at un.org Links: http://un-gaid.org/fr/gfyouth / www.un-gaid.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Youth_GF_One_Pager_18052007.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 136585 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Programme - GAID Forum 24-26 Sept.doc Type: application/msword Size: 72192 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: REGISTRATION.DOC Type: application/msword Size: 81920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 14:43:45 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:43:45 -0400 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: References: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410709181143x577b3d46i893e78b241d4e076@mail.gmail.com> *Large type, for distribution in context; shared on a community-wide interests (or construable neighboring interest) basis:* Dear Colleagues: The following appreciable post may be of special interest to persons with disabilities because many of our issues are reflected here. Reactions and Responses to the post itself may vary, but our own concern with "portal to portal" access and accessibility does seem strongly reflected in the below discussion of "end to end." Of course, "beginning to beginning" would be even more joyful! Thanks Dan et al. With affection, welcoming feedback, and *Respectfully Interfacing," LDMF. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Krimm < dan at musicunbound.com> Date: Sep 17, 2007 10:23 PM Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? To: governance at lists.cpsr.org While I generally subscribe to most of Karl's comments, this one perked up my ears: At 1:41 PM -0700 9/17/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: ... issues >such as access might become non issues if we can oversee and gently >govern a few aspects internet technology (such as end-to-end >connectivity and service levels) so that it becomes ubiquitous and >inexpensive. This seems to discount the efforts by telcos and cable cos in the US explicitly trying to make Internet access more expensive (by abandoning open end-to-end and even eroding the market for flat-fee and unlimited-use service). How can this fly in the market in the US? Because broadband ISPs are no longer governed by open access/interconnection rules in the US (as remain in place many other places in the EU and elsewhere), and thus broadband ISP competition in the US is "suggestive" at best. In the US, the open access/interconnection policy is determined by the FCC under the authority of the Telecom Act which has been primed for re-hashing since last year or earlier. And the FCC and legislature are heavily lobbied by the ISPs to influence regulatory policy in this area. In short, it is hard for me to see how "we" (who is "we" anyway?) could "oversee and gently govern" anything in the area of end-to-end and service levels, at least in the US. There's nothing "gentle" about it whatsoever, unfortunately. It's flat-out war. It was war last fall in the last congress when the Republicans were in the majority and the net neutrality movement had to fight Ted Stevens' ("Senator Tubes") bill, and it remains a fierce struggle this time around because the Democrats have not moved on it since January (the Senate NN bill has few co-sponsors and remains stuck in committee, while the House bill hasn't even been introduced as Ed Markey promised). FreePress.net is gearing up for a big constituent push for this fall, because next year is presidential election year and things generally come to a stop. It will take the mobilization of a huge, active and vocal grass roots constituency to get this on the agenda before the end of the year. IGF in November will be too late to address anything in this cycle. Besides, what political authority could possibly impact national regulation of this sort? Some of these issues cannot wait for a global authority to emerge, and must be addressed immediately in national or more local jurisdictions. Voluntary technical standards can easily be ignored by private firms. Remember when Netscape simply built whatever HTML functionality it wanted into its browsers, W3C and IETF be damned? When M$FT polluted Java with proprietary hooks in its mission to undermine the "middleware" threat to its OS market power? Now Cisco is building routers for clients who want smart pipes, not for any standards body that is concerned with open end-to-end dumb pipes. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune, unless the law weighs in on it. Gentle oversight will be set aside. Also, "access" requires attention to availability of hardware/software (and maintenance/upgrade budgets), user training, and locally-relevant content as a motivation to get over the biggest hurdles at the outset of customer penetration in tech markets. Open network standards are necessary but not sufficient to systematically ensure broad or universal access. So I don't think that ensuring end-to-end and reasonable service levels will automatically ensure "digital inclusion" (as it is referred to in the US these days, among local advocates for universal access) in a meaningful way, all by itself. Oh, I *wish* these could be gentle oversight. But I don't see anything gentle about the political wars we are going to continue to have surrounding Internet architecture and deployment. The political and commercial stakes are too high, and the public and commercial powers are too strong. They will ignore us or co-opt us, but they will not leave us alone. That's it for now. Since I won't be able to get to Rio myself, I guess this is my chance to engage the discussion... ;-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. 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: Spelled out: (The year) 2007 is my 50th year in computing and I am a woman with disabilities - dot com. actual email address: 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 dan at musicunbound.com Tue Sep 18 15:06:49 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:06:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: <46F00CA5.5070507@cavebear.com> References: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> <46F00CA5.5070507@cavebear.com> Message-ID: At 10:36 AM -0700 9/18/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: >Let me explain my sense of the word "gentle" - I didn't mean something >that is lacking compelling force. I'm helping to restore a 1923 >mainline steam locomotive and sometimes we have to "gently" coerce a >bolt to turn - often with a 16# sledge hammer and a gasoline torch. The >gentleness comes from the fact that the force is applied with care; but >that bolt *will* turn (else we drag out the cutting torch.) Okay, I think I understand: smaller steps rather than larger steps, but with no less strength of purpose. Nevertheless, the strength of purpose requires deciding jurisdiction of where such governance should be located institutionally. That is, where does the coercive power lie, and who controls it, and how? This seems to remain confusing and contentious for the IG community at this time. >Now, in the area of the end-to-end principle I agree that here in the US >the telco/cable duopoly is using all means fair, and more often foul, to >obliterate any and all threats to their position and profits. Their >behaviour is outrageous. > >But the answer to that is not a blanket statement that differential >pricing or differential serves are banned on the net - that would be non >gentle, and also a failure to recognize that some net services (e.g. low >jitter transport of packets) does incur real costs (such as leaving >links underutilized so that they have the capacity to handle traffic >bursts, or doing the complex work of traffic engineering.) A "gentle" >kind of governance would be something that tries to find guiding >principles and finds the right balance. Like perhaps reintroducing open access/interconnection rules to broadband ISPs in the US. Except that the telco/cablecos would not view that as "gentle" at all... ;-) In the case of such strategies, sometimes "gentle" means "under the radar" -- the problem with that is that everything is over the radar for telcos/cablecos, but more likely to be under the radar for the general public, making it harder for CS to mobilize the public without seeming shrill. It's a difficult equation to get to add up, no silver bullets, mega-corps generally have the advantage because they have the resources to be keenly aware of all ramifications and to plan ahead for the long term in secrecy to get a head start before CS catches on. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Tue Sep 18 17:33:52 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:33:52 -0700 Subject: Fwd: [governance] Re: "gentle" governance of internet tech? In-Reply-To: <8cbfe7410709181143x577b3d46i893e78b241d4e076@mail.gmail.com> References: <46EEE67A.7060405@cavebear.com> <8cbfe7410709181143x577b3d46i893e78b241d4e076@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: At 2:43 PM -0400 9/18/07, l.d.misek-falkoff wrote: >Large type, for distribution in context; shared on a community-wide >interests (or construable neighboring interest) basis: > >Dear Colleagues: > >The following appreciable post may be of special interest to persons with >disabilities because many of our issues are reflected here. > >Reactions and Responses to the post itself may vary, but our own concern >with "portal to portal" access and accessibility does seem strongly >reflected in the below discussion of "end to end." Of course, "beginning >to beginning" would be even more joyful! Thanks Dan et al. > >With affection, welcoming feedback, >and *Respectfully Interfacing," LDMF. Just a note of clarification on terminology. End-to-end (or also "open end-to-end") refers to the "dumb pipes/smart edges" architecture of TCP/IP etc. Generally as a term of art (i.e., jargon), it refers narrowly to the network protocol, rather than to the broader questions of meaningful access. Perhaps "edge-to-edge" would be more appropriate than referring to ends or beginnings, because all edges (user nodes on the Internet) ideally encompass both ends and beginnings in the constant conversation of humanity. Other related concepts are net neutrality, common carriage, user/data nondiscrimination, etc. Basically, it's about not filtering data or charging differently for data transport on the basis of origin, destination, or content. (However, this may still allow for some degree of optimization generically according to data type or application type, although one must be careful not to disadvantage new applications that may warrant high priority for throughput but have not been explicitly prioritized in an existing optimization context.) When it comes to "access" in general, I think the discussion should be *much* broader, *starting* with open data protocols, but *continuing* with hardware/software access, user training, and local/community-driven information services and community fora that make network access useful and important. That is, Internet access in meaningful terms does not end with the Internet infrastructure itself. It also involves all of the surrounding criteria that enable productive use of the network (and whose absence continues to obstruct productive use of the network). Best, 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 18 23:19:10 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio Message-ID: <740063.25691.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Dan, You are only partially right here. For example, in Australia, and yes a first world example, there is a ranking for companies on their CSR. I can't see how the leading companies on this list actually gain financially. A very small proportion of the population actually takes any notice. They're more interested in cheap bank fees, for example, when it comes to banks. So yes, companies have responded to CSR as a result of public pressure. For example, how many Australians would know Westpac has been one of the leading companies for CSR for several years, and the top ranking bank? It would be negligible. But an even greater reason has been pressure from governments, who around the world are adamant they need to reduce taxes and pass on responsibility to companies to develop CSR programmes. My problem with this trend for governments to tax less and corporations to give more (in this area of CSR), either through foundations or direct corporate giving, is that people choose smiley cuddle programmes to fund. But I don't agree with you on the profit motive. Some areas yes, some areas no. And it would be a greater return for company shareholders to have no involvement in CSR in many cases. For example, one of the most successful charities in the UK is a donkey sanctuary. It's absurd! An article in The Independent in 2004 says it "pulls in more than £14m a year in donations, far more than charities such as Age Concern, Mencap or even the Samaritans. An extraordinary figure, given that donkeys rarely figure in our daily lives." See http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article46159.ece Governments are much better, generally, at choosing to fund programmes in their own country or others. But yes, people (individuals, government and corporations) follow areas where CS has first trodden. So I totally agree with you on this and your last 2 paragraphs. And yes, CSR has limits. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Dan Krimm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 4:54:53 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio Just a quick comment on CSR and its limits. CSR is driven my market forces (demand, regulation, technology -- all integrated with the profit motive). The reason CSR is so hot these days is specifically because CS worked so hard for so long to bring commonwealth issues onto the public agenda, both in raw propagation of "social norms" and in formal regulation in the public sector. This creates demand for CSR inside the market, and thus it is now good business to respond to it. But make no mistake: this would *not* have happened without efforts by CS *outside* the market per se (advocacy, activism, policy analysis). And predictably, CSR is still not inclined to *lead* on these issues even now. Anything that has not already established itself in market forces or explicit regulation is still not seriously on the table for CSR generally (SR consultants will be the first to push back against anything that presents a risk to their corporate clients -- this is still about bottom line profits and perhaps long-term commercial sustainability). CSR is about "digesting" the movements that CS initiated and pushed, and occasionally got written into law or treaty. CS is the clear leader here, with the for-profit and public sectors following the resulting sea change (with the stipulation that new laws symbiotically help to support the evolution of social norms, and ultimately all of these dynamics reinforce each other in causal terms). Dan At 6:50 AM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: >Nnenna, > >There is probably not a clear view on the success or otherwise of funding >projects from the first to the third world. Some work, some don't and some >are in between. But while we in the first world probably don't understand >this as well as we could, I don't think you really understand what CSR is >about. > >I see no evidence of CSR being about greed on a large scale. The points >you made on this no doubt have varying degrees of applicability depending >on the funder, and this can also be determined in part by whether it goes >through a foundation or not. > >One could easily argue that the problems are as much if not more the fault >of the regimes in varying countries, how the programmes within these >countries are set up and obstacles placed in the path of implementing >programmes. > >David > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Nnenna >To: Governance >Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 11:28:12 PM >Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio > >Hi people > >I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time >constraints. Here are my quick 'tots > >Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a >prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it >wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of >"them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet >connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are >already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno >longer be what others should do but what you can do. > >On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT >infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been >roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free >Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to >realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic >infrastructure and social stability. > >Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and >all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of >capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing >countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to >others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate >body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always >have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it >is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently >they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others >from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning >from NGOs to governments... > >On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this >list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it >saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be >good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes >already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that >need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who >will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the >fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting. > >I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he >will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity > >Cheers > >Nnenna > > >Check >out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. > > > >Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. >Get >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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Wed Sep 19 01:52:13 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:52:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio In-Reply-To: <740063.25691.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <740063.25691.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, I guess I would include public regulation as a shaping factor on the market (violate the law, pay a price, lose profitability -- after all, with limited liability it is still relatively rare that corporate officials actually pay personally for legal "mistakes" ... it's the corporation that pays some price in legal fees, cash penalties, regulatory punishments, etc.). The "green" movement in the US kicked up a notch in the last year as global warming has finally gotten past the nay-sayers, and they are putting lots of pressure not only on final products but supply chains (Nike, etc.) and other corporate behavior. I think one of the key issues in all of this is verification of SR claims, to defuse the market for fraudulent claims of social responsibility. Sometimes it is naturally verifiable, because there is a third party involved (like a CS NPO) that can confirm, but often this is not the case leaving room for masqueraders. With respect to shareholders, the problem there is short-term versus long-term profits, and publicly-held corporations have a real hard time getting past the "next-quarteritis" that infects fickle public investing based on things other than solid managerial practices. I think Nnenna may have phrased things in an extreme manner, but the main point here is to see those limits of CSR for what they are, and to be thankful when CSR dynamics help corporations change their behavior for the better, but not to rely on that a a sole route to progress. I think that might yield a "consensus position" on the issue... ;-) Dan At 8:19 PM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: >Dan, > >You are only partially right here. For example, in Australia, and yes a >first world example, there is a ranking for companies on their CSR. I >can't see how the leading companies on this list actually gain >financially. A very small proportion of the population actually takes any >notice. They're more interested in cheap bank fees, for example, when it >comes to banks. So yes, companies have responded to CSR as a result of >public pressure. For example, how many Australians would know Westpac has >been one of the leading companies for CSR for several years, and the top >ranking bank? It would be negligible. > >But an even greater reason has been pressure from governments, who around >the world are adamant they need to reduce taxes and pass on responsibility >to companies to develop CSR programmes. > >My problem with this trend for governments to tax less and corporations to >give more (in this area of CSR), either through foundations or direct >corporate giving, is that people choose smiley cuddle programmes to fund. > >But I don't agree with you on the profit motive. Some areas yes, some >areas no. And it would be a greater return for company shareholders to >have no involvement in CSR in many cases. > >For example, one of the most successful charities in the UK is a donkey >sanctuary. It's absurd! An article in The Independent in 2004 says it >"pulls in more than £14m a year in donations, far more than charities >such as Age Concern, Mencap or even the Samaritans. An extraordinary >figure, given that donkeys rarely figure in our daily lives." See >http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article46159.ece > >Governments are much better, generally, at choosing to fund programmes in >their own country or others. > >But yes, people (individuals, government and corporations) follow areas >where CS has first trodden. So I totally agree with you on this and your >last 2 paragraphs. And yes, CSR has limits. > >David > >----- Original Message ---- >From: Dan Krimm >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 4:54:53 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio > >Just a quick comment on CSR and its limits. > >CSR is driven my market forces (demand, regulation, technology -- all >integrated with the profit motive). The reason CSR is so hot these days is >specifically because CS worked so hard for so long to bring commonwealth >issues onto the public agenda, both in raw propagation of "social norms" >and in formal regulation in the public sector. This creates demand for CSR >inside the market, and thus it is now good business to respond to it. > >But make no mistake: this would *not* have happened without efforts by CS >*outside* the market per se (advocacy, activism, policy analysis). And >predictably, CSR is still not inclined to *lead* on these issues even now. >Anything that has not already established itself in market forces or >explicit regulation is still not seriously on the table for CSR generally >(SR consultants will be the first to push back against anything that >presents a risk to their corporate clients -- this is still about bottom >line profits and perhaps long-term commercial sustainability). > >CSR is about "digesting" the movements that CS initiated and pushed, and >occasionally got written into law or treaty. CS is the clear leader here, >with the for-profit and public sectors following the resulting sea change >(with the stipulation that new laws symbiotically help to support the >evolution of social norms, and ultimately all of these dynamics reinforce >each other in causal terms). > >Dan > > > >At 6:50 AM -0700 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: >>Nnenna, >> >>There is probably not a clear view on the success or otherwise of funding >>projects from the first to the third world. Some work, some don't and some >>are in between. But while we in the first world probably don't understand >>this as well as we could, I don't think you really understand what CSR is >>about. >> >>I see no evidence of CSR being about greed on a large scale. The points >>you made on this no doubt have varying degrees of applicability depending >>on the funder, and this can also be determined in part by whether it goes >>through a foundation or not. >> >>One could easily argue that the problems are as much if not more the fault >>of the regimes in varying countries, how the programmes within these >>countries are set up and obstacles placed in the path of implementing >>programmes. >> >>David >> >>----- Original Message ---- >>From: Nnenna >>To: Governance >>Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 11:28:12 PM >>Subject: [governance] Digital Solidarity, Access, CSR and Rio >> >>Hi people >> >>I would have loved to engage in these discussions but for time >>constraints. Here are my quick 'tots >> >>Maybe if we go a step further, and try to replace Digital Divide - a >>prooblem - with Digital Solidarity - a challenge, a responsibility - it >>wil help shape our thinking. In this case, it will no longer be a case of >>"them" but us. If you have access to a computer, electricity, internet >>connection, good bandwidth and pro time to read this mail, then you are >>already on the +ve side of the Global Digital line. The question willno >>longer be what others should do but what you can do. >> >>On Access, it is easier to point out what governments should do in IT >>infrastructure until you understand that governments themselves have been >>roped into licence and agreement nets... In our engagement as the Free >>Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa - FOSSFA -, we have come to >>realize the intricate relationship among software, hardware, basic >>infrastructure and social stability. >> >>Corporate Social Responsibility, as well as Direct Foreign Investment and >>all the development talk is hinged on greed. They are all offshoot of >>capitalism. For organiwations or individuals who fundraise in developing >>countries, they already know that. But I am not sure it is clear to >>others in the developed cuntries. I am yet to meet a single corporate >>body that donates on 100 percent humanitarian purposes. Sponsors always >>have a reason. It may not be financial at first sight, but in the end it >>is. Some do it to prevent their competitors from doing it. So apparently >>they do not gain; Except that at least, they would have prevented others >>from gaining, which in a sense, is a gain. You can take this reasoning >>from NGOs to governments... >> >>On Rio, I do not understand why we cannot ask a straight question on this >>list - who is sure to be in Rio? Once it si clear who will be there, it >>saves us the stress of playing wild cards. On another note, it might be >>good to have a pre consultations on important issues under the themes >>already outlined. If we have a basic list of Civil Society concerns that >>need to be voiced in Rio, it will make the presentation of the people who >>will represent CS easier. They could build their presenatations on the >>fundamentals and not worry that they are misrepresenting. >> >>I believe that everyone is this list can contribute to Rio whether s/he >>will be physically present or not. That, also, will be Digital Solidarity >> >>Cheers >> >>Nnenna >> >> >>Check >>out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. >> >> >> >>Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. >>Get >>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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 04:39:16 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:39:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' In-Reply-To: <00e201c7fa10$62cef6e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> References: <58647.77748.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <00e201c7fa10$62cef6e0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: That appears a more subtle but very dangrous way of blocking debate in an open society on a free open source like this forum. May I understand. Michael to mean that there is a Soviet Union Police on this forum? Aaron On 9/18/07, michael gurstein wrote: > > Without getting into the other aspects of your note below, David (should > we really be discussing those more general issues here), I think the > most pertinent question for this list and overall for CS in the context > of the IGF is whether Corporate Social Responsibility and those involved > in this should rightly be included within CS (from a stakeholder > perspective) or within the Corporate/private sector grouping... > > My understanding in fact is that many of those active in the private > sector grouping around the IGF see this as an element of their overall > CSR activities/responsibilities so including them within the CS aspect > would surely be redundant and inappropriate. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > Sent: September 18, 2007 3:04 AM > To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we like > it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of corporations > is important in addressing humanitarian issues and those that involve > assisting development of either less developed countries or people in > need of assistance (for want of a better description), whether they have > a disability or homeless or poor. > > Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. > Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE SOCIAL > RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for example, it's > most likely part of your involvement will involve what you are good at. > > You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is no > socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more popular in > both developed countries and less developed countries. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > David > > In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, > where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the > many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of > perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is > in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in > marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi > driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not > bothered > > Aaron > > On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads > > for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > > > Cheers > > David > > > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of > > the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 > > villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular > > networks. > > > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and > > education, as well as boosting the local economy. > > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > > > --------- > > 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 > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 > Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > !DSPAM:2676,46efa2cb86778437780003! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From riazt at iafrica.com Wed Sep 19 04:38:13 2007 From: riazt at iafrica.com (Riaz K. Tayob) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:38:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] AP Spy Chief Seeks More Eavesdropping Power + 1 BBC Message-ID: <46F0DFF5.5040404@iafrica.com> Snips from two articles: AP: National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell could not say how many Americans' phone conversations have been overheard because of U.S. wiretaps on foreign phone lines. "I don't have the exact number ... considering there are billions of transactions every day," McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the law governing federal surveillance of phone calls and e-mails. BBC: Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. Spy Chief Seeks More Eavesdropping Power By Pamela Hess The Associated Press Tuesday 18 September 2007 Washington - No Americans' telephones have been tapped without a court order since at least February, the top U.S. intelligence official told Congress Tuesday. But National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell could not say how many Americans' phone conversations have been overheard because of U.S. wiretaps on foreign phone lines. "I don't have the exact number ... considering there are billions of transactions every day," McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee at a hearing on the law governing federal surveillance of phone calls and e-mails. McConnell said he could only speak authoritatively about the seven months since he became DNI. In a newspaper interview last month, he said the government had tapped fewer than 100 Americans' phones and e-mails under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires warrants from a secret intelligence court. McConnell is seeking additional changes to the law, which Congress hastily modified just before going on vacation in August based in part on the intelligence chief's warnings of a dire gap in U.S. intelligence. The new law eased some of the restrictions on government eavesdropping contained in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, to let the government more efficiently intercept foreign communications. Under the new law, the government can eavesdrop, without a court order, on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States, even if an American is on one end of the conversation - so long as that American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance. Such surveillance was generally prohibited under the original FISA law unless a court approved it. Bypassing court approval is one of the most controversial aspects of the new Protect America Act, which will expire in January unless Congress extends it. Before McConnell can convince Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent - and agree to even more changes easing the provisions of FISA - he first has to allay concerns that the law passed so hastily earlier this year does not subject Americans to unwarranted government surveillance. "The right to privacy is too important to be sacrificed in a last-minute rush before a congressional recess, which is what happened," said Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the panel's chairman. Democrats worry that the law could be interpreted to open business records, library files, personal mail, and homes to searches by intelligence and law enforcement officers without a court order. Assistant Attorney General Kenneth L. Wainstein said the new surveillance powers granted by the Protect America Act apply only when the assistance of a communications company is needed to conduct the surveillance. Therefore, he said, the government could not use the law to search homes, open mail or collect business records because no communications provider would be involved in such a transaction. Many Democrats in Congress are now seeking to narrow what they consider to be overly broad language by rewriting the law. Wainstein warned that inserting specific prohibitions on government surveillance to protect civil liberties could have unintended consequences. "Anytime you put in limiting language, you've got to make sure it doesn't have unintended limiting consequences," Wainstein said. McConnell said that as long as his office can examine every word of the new language to scrub it for unintended consequences, he would be open to the changes. However, Bush administration officials say concern about the new powers is unfounded. They contend the Protect America Act only allows the government to target foreigners for surveillance without a warrant, a change that was needed because of changes in communications technology. Addressing the controversy over the law, the Justice Department and the White House Tuesday issued a "myth and facts" paper meant to ease the concerns of civil liberties advocates and privacy groups that believe it gives the government broader powers than intended. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, called the effort a troubling "charm offensive." "Let's have some truth in advertising. The act gives the president almost unfettered power to spy without judicial approval - not only on foreigners but on Americans," Nadler said. McConnell said the new eavesdropping powers are needed not just to spy on terrorists but also to defend against more traditional potential adversaries. He told the panel that China and Russia are aggressively spying on sensitive U.S. facilities, intelligence systems and development projects, and that their efforts are approaching Cold War levels. McConnell and Wainstein pushed for other changes in the law, including granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies which may have helped the government conduct surveillance prior to January 2007 without a court order under the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. Wainstein said there are 40 to 50 lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies that are now pending in U.S. courts. BBC NEWS Russia and China 'spying on US' Russia and China are spying on US facilities at close to Cold War levels, the head of US intelligence has warned. Both were aggressively collecting information on the US, head of National Intelligence Michael McConnell warned. US agencies are battling traditional state foes as well as terror groups, Mr McConnell told a congressional hearing. Mr McConnell was defending new legislation allowing the US government to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. "Foreign intelligence information concerning the plans, activities and intentions of foreign powers and their agents is critical to protect the nation and preserve our security," Mr McConnell told the House Judiciary Committee. Defending powers Wire tapping without a warrant has been a contentious issue since the US Congress passed new anti-terror laws in August. China and Russia's foreign intelligence services are among the most aggressive in collecting against sensitive and protected US systems... Their efforts are approaching Cold War levels. Michael McConnell US Director of National Intelligence The Protect America Act allows the government to eavesdrop on foreign communications, even if the recipient is a person living in the US. These powers are due to expire in January unless Congress extends them. The White House wants them made permanent. But opponents - including civil liberties groups - say an extension could erode privacy rights and give the government unrestricted power to spy on its own citizens. Mr McConnell told Congress the powers were crucial to preserving national security. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7001856.stm Published: 2007/09/18 21:08:23 GMT © BBC MMVII ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 04:52:34 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' Message-ID: <314518.36340.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Aaron, What Michael means is this list is for certain issues, and these are: "...a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individuals who came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. The IGC's charter and further information can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/" >From http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance So the issue is is this discussion off-topic? And he's probably right. Not every discussion can take place on every list. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 6:39:16 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' That appears a more subtle but very dangrous way of blocking debate in an open society on a free open source like this forum. May I understand. Michael to mean that there is a Soviet Union Police on this forum? Aaron On 9/18/07, michael gurstein wrote: > > Without getting into the other aspects of your note below, David (should > we really be discussing those more general issues here), I think the > most pertinent question for this list and overall for CS in the context > of the IGF is whether Corporate Social Responsibility and those involved > in this should rightly be included within CS (from a stakeholder > perspective) or within the Corporate/private sector grouping... > > My understanding in fact is that many of those active in the private > sector grouping around the IGF see this as an element of their overall > CSR activities/responsibilities so including them within the CS aspect > would surely be redundant and inappropriate. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > Sent: September 18, 2007 3:04 AM > To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we like > it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of corporations > is important in addressing humanitarian issues and those that involve > assisting development of either less developed countries or people in > need of assistance (for want of a better description), whether they have > a disability or homeless or poor. > > Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. > Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE SOCIAL > RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for example, it's > most likely part of your involvement will involve what you are good at. > > You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is no > socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more popular in > both developed countries and less developed countries. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > David > > In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, > where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the > many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of > perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is > in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in > marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi > driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not > bothered > > Aaron > > On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads > > for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > > > Cheers > > David > > > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of > > the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 > > villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular > > networks. > > > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and > > education, as well as boosting the local economy. > > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > > > --------- > > 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 > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 > Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > !DSPAM:2676,46efa2cb86778437780003! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 05:12:57 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:12:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' In-Reply-To: <314518.36340.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <314518.36340.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael All that I know, but we have had at tims to engage on debates hovering over human rights issues on this forum. Those rights did not necessarily had something to do with Internet governance. Furthemore, your discuss that brought about our xchanges covered areas that went beyond IG business. I cannot understand some on's ir on that. Aaron On 9/19/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Aaron, > > What Michael means is this list is for certain issues, and these are: > "...a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC comprises individuals who came together in the context > of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to > promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. > > The IGC's charter and further information can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/" > > From http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > So the issue is is this discussion off-topic? And he's probably right. Not every discussion can take place on every list. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein > Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 6:39:16 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > That appears a more subtle but very dangrous way of blocking debate in > an open society on a free open source like this forum. > May I understand. Michael to mean that there is a Soviet Union Police > on this forum? > > Aaron > > On 9/18/07, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Without getting into the other aspects of your note below, David (should > > we really be discussing those more general issues here), I think the > > most pertinent question for this list and overall for CS in the context > > of the IGF is whether Corporate Social Responsibility and those involved > > in this should rightly be included within CS (from a stakeholder > > perspective) or within the Corporate/private sector grouping... > > > > My understanding in fact is that many of those active in the private > > sector grouping around the IGF see this as an element of their overall > > CSR activities/responsibilities so including them within the CS aspect > > would surely be redundant and inappropriate. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > > Sent: September 18, 2007 3:04 AM > > To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > > > > It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we like > > it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of corporations > > is important in addressing humanitarian issues and those that involve > > assisting development of either less developed countries or people in > > need of assistance (for want of a better description), whether they have > > a disability or homeless or poor. > > > > Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. > > Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE SOCIAL > > RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for example, it's > > most likely part of your involvement will involve what you are good at. > > > > You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is no > > socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more popular in > > both developed countries and less developed countries. > > > > David > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > > David > > > > In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of globalisation, > > where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the detriment of the > > many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to look for ways of > > perpetuating their cause. The said article which I am still to read is > > in that line. the act of giving say 10000 telephones is known in > > marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs of th product want toi > > driv this product into the heart of the impoverished consumers. I am not > > bothered > > > > Aaron > > > > On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are ads > > > for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > > > > > Cheers > > > David > > > > > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest of > > > the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > > > > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 > > > villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular > > > networks. > > > > > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and > > > education, as well as boosting the local economy. > > > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > > > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > > > > > --------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > > Special Assistant To The President > > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > > ASAFE > > P.O.Box 5213 > > Douala-Cameroon > > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > ____________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 > > Mail. > > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,46efa2cb86778437780003! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 19 07:49:22 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:19:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Nomcom for IGC nominations for speaking slots in the IGF Message-ID: <20070919114928.C8C6467858@smtp1.electricembers.net> Hi all A nomcom was formed by the co-coordinators 3 days ago for nominating speakers for the main sessions at the IGF. The members of nomcom are Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and Norbert Bollow. One of the nomcom members will declare the result any time now. All deliberations were done by the nomcom privately over email and tele-conferencing, i.e. not in view of the co-coordinators. We forwarded all the nominations, including self-nominations that were received by us. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From nb at bollow.ch Wed Sep 19 08:16:11 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:16:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET In-Reply-To: <01b901c7f951$2805e290$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> (message from michael gurstein on Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:35:19 -0700) References: <01b901c7f951$2805e290$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Message-ID: <20070919121611.C86952201FD@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > Norbert and all, can I suggest that we be rather more careful with our > terminology... > > The term "Digital Divide" has become something of a "portmanteau" and > tends to mean whatever the user wishes it to mean -- all the way from > simple available access (the 5? kilometers from a pay telephone as the > standard means for defining telephone access being transferred to > something similar for the Internet) to various forms of "divides" being > conflated within the Digital Divide notion (literacy divides, financial > divides, disability divides etc.etc.) to actually being concerned with > how the access is used. What I like about the term "digital divide" is precisely that it expresses this discontent with a situation in which those who are already disadvantaged unfairly become even more disadvantaged, _without_ implying a particular model for describing and trying to address the specifics of the problem. I think that it's important to separate this emotional side of the issue from the needed scientifically fact-oriented processes for addressing it. I often put "digital divide" in quotation marks (as e.g. in the posting that you replied to, see below) in order to emphasize that I consider it an emotional term rather than a precisely-defined one. By contrast, "digital solidarity" is a term which totally fails to make this separation and which is therefore IMO totally unsuitable as a basis for any kind of fact-oriented discussion of the issues. Nevertheless "Digital Solidarity" would be a great name e.g. for an NGO aiming at promoting a particular set of solution strategies for "digital divide" problems. > The term itself has been quite severely critiqued by myself > http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html among > others... (I choose to talk about "effective use", but others talk about > "real use", "practical applications" and so on. I agree that it is essential to go beyond mere "access" in the sense of being able to send and receive IP datagrams and work out precise models for the problems that need to be solved, on the basis of concepts like the "effective use" . Greetings, Norbert. > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: September 17, 2007 2:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET > e > > kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: > > > Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who > > think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my apologies. > > > > - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even > > - in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts > > - (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts > > - have made)? > > > > The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to argue > > from but I need your opinions. > > How about a rating system from 0 to 10 e.g. as follows (with > subdivisions between the points such as e.g. "0.5" when there is both > widespread non-awareness and denial but nothing else > happening) > > 0 - hardly anyone is aware of the need to address digital divide issues > 1 - existence or importance of the main digital divide issues is denied > 2 - some money is spend on addressing digital divide issues without any > serious measurement and evaluation of results > 3 - some serious efforts with evaluation of results are made, but there > is no clarity about whether sufficient progress is made that it can > be expected that with the current level of effort ans current > strategies, the main "digital divide" problems will eventually get > solved > 4 - the fundamental economic causes of the "digital divide" problems > are well-understood and adequate strategies for solving the > problems have been developed and empirically verified > 5 - adequate strategies for solving the problems have been politically > accepted and adequate funding has been made available > 6 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in some > of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas at > least serious efforts are made > 7 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in most > of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the > remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively > addressed. > 8 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in 90% > of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the > remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively > addressed. > 9 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all > of the areas under consideration, and strategies are being developed > for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing > 10 -not only have the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly > solved in all of the areas under consideration, but also there are > adequate strategies and programs in place (with adequate long-term > assurance of funding) for preventing this category of problems > from resurfacing -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 08:18:54 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF Message-ID: <830916.33362.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, As Parminder mentioned, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri and I met today (19th) via teleconference and discussed the nominees and selected the following speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: ---Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific Carlos Alfonso - South America ---Diversity Monthian Buntan - Asia Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa Daniel Pimenta - LAC ---Access Daniel Stern - Africa John Dada - Africa Anita Gurumurty - Asia --- Openness William Drake - US Ang Peng Hwa - Asia ---Security Izumi Aizu - Asia Ralf Bendrath - Europe Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America ---Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola - Europe Roberto Bissio - LAC ---- Opening Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa Adama Samassékou - Africa. We are still yet to discuss those for the session on The Way Forward, and hopefully this will be resolved in the next 24 hours. The discussion went for two hours and it was very difficult to select the final list. 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 08:40:35 2007 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:40:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <830916.33362.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <830916.33362.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David et all The list was quite comprehensive, ressource and gender wise. When I find energetic people like Nenna and Anriette (the power house at APC) I can only but wish you all kudos. The two hours brains storming too was equally comprehnsive as the rsult have shown. We look forward fo a succesful outcome. which is very predictable. Aaron On 9/19/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Hi all, > > As Parminder mentioned, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri and I met today (19th) via teleconference and discussed the nominees and selected the following speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: > > ---Critical Internet Resources > > Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific > Carlos Alfonso - South America > > > ---Diversity > > Monthian Buntan - Asia > Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa > Daniel Pimenta - LAC > > ---Access > > Daniel Stern - Africa > John Dada - Africa > Anita Gurumurty - Asia > > --- Openness > > William Drake - US > Ang Peng Hwa - Asia > > ---Security > > Izumi Aizu - Asia > Ralf Bendrath - Europe > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America > > > ---Emerging Issues > > Vittorio Bertola - Europe > Roberto Bissio - LAC > > ---- > Opening > > Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa > Adama Samassékou - Africa. > > We are still yet to discuss those for the session on The Way Forward, and hopefully this will be resolved in the next 24 hours. > > The discussion went for two hours and it was very difficult to select the final list. > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 19 08:59:11 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:59:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET References: <01b901c7f951$2805e290$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20070919121611.C86952201FD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <004801c7fabc$e2e23660$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Should I simply add that as far as the "Digital divide" is concerned, not all the infos and coms implicit to this locution are digital ! Radio, television (mostly) and other media such as newspapers are still ... analog. This being said I fully agree Michel's and Robert's (within others) critical approach. For our French speaking readers I'd refer to the book published by the Commmission nationale francaise pour l'UNESCO, entitled "La Societe de l'information" : Glossaire critique . This is to say that this critical approach on (i.a.) "Digital Divide" is also shared by the UN agency. Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:16 PM Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET > Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> Norbert and all, can I suggest that we be rather more careful with our >> terminology... >> >> The term "Digital Divide" has become something of a "portmanteau" and >> tends to mean whatever the user wishes it to mean -- all the way from >> simple available access (the 5? kilometers from a pay telephone as the >> standard means for defining telephone access being transferred to >> something similar for the Internet) to various forms of "divides" being >> conflated within the Digital Divide notion (literacy divides, financial >> divides, disability divides etc.etc.) to actually being concerned with >> how the access is used. > > What I like about the term "digital divide" is precisely that it > expresses this discontent with a situation in which those who are > already disadvantaged unfairly become even more disadvantaged, > _without_ implying a particular model for describing and trying to > address the specifics of the problem. > > I think that it's important to separate this emotional side of the > issue from the needed scientifically fact-oriented processes for > addressing it. > > I often put "digital divide" in quotation marks (as e.g. in the > posting that you replied to, see below) in order to emphasize that I > consider it an emotional term rather than a precisely-defined one. > > By contrast, "digital solidarity" is a term which totally fails to > make this separation and which is therefore IMO totally unsuitable > as a basis for any kind of fact-oriented discussion of the issues. > Nevertheless "Digital Solidarity" would be a great name e.g. for an > NGO aiming at promoting a particular set of solution strategies for > "digital divide" problems. > >> The term itself has been quite severely critiqued by myself >> http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue8_12/gurstein/index.html among >> others... (I choose to talk about "effective use", but others talk about >> "real use", "practical applications" and so on. > > I agree that it is essential to go beyond mere "access" in the sense > of being able to send and receive IP datagrams and work out precise > models for the problems that need to be solved, on the basis of > concepts like the "effective use" . > > Greetings, > Norbert. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] >> Sent: September 17, 2007 2:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET >> e >> >> kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote: >> >> > Would you share your opinions on the following question, those who >> > think it's a silly question should ignore it and accept my apologies. >> > >> > - Since some would rightly argue that the digital divide exists even >> > - in advanced countries, should we judge ourselves by the efforts >> > - (money, resources, etc.) or the results (the impact our efforts >> > - have made)? >> > >> > The answer may seem obvious depending where one would choose to argue >> > from but I need your opinions. >> >> How about a rating system from 0 to 10 e.g. as follows (with >> subdivisions between the points such as e.g. "0.5" when there is both >> widespread non-awareness and denial but nothing else >> happening) >> >> 0 - hardly anyone is aware of the need to address digital divide issues >> 1 - existence or importance of the main digital divide issues is denied >> 2 - some money is spend on addressing digital divide issues without any >> serious measurement and evaluation of results >> 3 - some serious efforts with evaluation of results are made, but there >> is no clarity about whether sufficient progress is made that it can >> be expected that with the current level of effort ans current >> strategies, the main "digital divide" problems will eventually get >> solved >> 4 - the fundamental economic causes of the "digital divide" problems >> are well-understood and adequate strategies for solving the >> problems have been developed and empirically verified >> 5 - adequate strategies for solving the problems have been politically >> accepted and adequate funding has been made available >> 6 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in some >> of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas at >> least serious efforts are made >> 7 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in most >> of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the >> remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively >> addressed. >> 8 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in 90% >> of the areas under consideration, and in the remaining areas the >> remaining obstacles are well-understood and are getting effectively >> addressed. >> 9 - the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly solved in all >> of the areas under consideration, and strategies are being developed >> for preventing this category of problems from resurfacing >> 10 -not only have the "digital divide" problems have been verifiedly >> solved in all of the areas under consideration, but also there are >> adequate strategies and programs in place (with adequate long-term >> assurance of funding) for preventing this category of problems >> from resurfacing > > > -- > 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 > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10701 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 19 10:15:26 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:15:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: 830916.33362.qm@web54107.mail.re2.yahoo.com Message-ID: David, Parminder, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri; Good-Job! All great choices from a world full of wonderful people. Please find below links too bio information with regard to the Speakers. Only a few have blogs, if you find a link please post a ref. - speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: --- Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific http://www.circleid.com/members/731/ Carlos Alfonso - South America CARLOS ALFONSO: Information Network for the Third Sector Carlos Afonso has participated in the evolution of the new ICTs since their introduction in LAC region by promoting and defending the interests of the third sector. He has a broad knowledge of ICT issues, and his experience is transversal to most of the issues related to ICTs: free software, digital inclusion, intellectual property, Internet governance, etc. Carlos Afonso is part of the RITS team, a NGO-oriented services and capacity building network on information and communication technologies using the Internet as its main medium. In the late 60's he was an important person fighting against the dictatorship in Brazil. He was in exile in Chile, Panama and Canada. This last country adopts him as a Canadian citizen. During the re-democratisation process, Mr. Afonso worked for democratising the access to communications. The amnesty allowed him to return to Brazil. Carlos Afonso and Herbert de Souza (known as Betihno) founded one of the most important Brazilian NGOs, the Brazilian Institute for Social and Economic Analysis, IBASE. Mr Afonso designed, implemented and managed the AlterNex project, the first computer-based communications and information system in Latin America dedicated to serve civil society organizations. He is a co-founder of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). In 1991-1992, Mr Afonso proposed and coordinated the "UNCED Information Strategy Project in Rio" (UNCED ISP/Rio), first Internet project specifically developed for a UN conference. ISP/Rio's aims were to provide communications and information through the Internet so that organizations which had not been able to come to Rio was able to follow up on the events via the network. Carlos Afonso is also an independent consultant of the UNDP, IDRC, among other organizations. He is author of many books, articles and studies in different languages in relation to Internet development political and social issues. One of his fields of specialization and expertise is Internet Governance and ICANN. Besides his technical knowledge, he has recognized intellectual and political autonomy and broad respect for his ethical and democratic behaviour. http://www.rits.org.br --- Diversity Monthian Buntan - Asia Mr Monthian Buntan, Thai Association of the Blind (TAB), http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa Nnenna Nwakanma holds a triple Bachelors, in the Social Sciences, History and English and a Masters degree in International Relations and Law. She has done large-scale work within International development organisations and institutions in Africa on Information, Documentation and International Relations. Among them, The Home Health Education Service, The Helen Keller Foundation and The African Development Bank. Co-founder of different pan-African organizations: The Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), The Africa Network of Information Society Actors (ANISA), and the Africa Civil Society for the Information Society (ACSIS). One of the major Civil Society Actors in the World Summit on the Information Society, she represents the African Civil Society on the Digital Solidarity Fund, and advises on the Africa Information Society Initiatiave. Today she is Council Chair of the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa. Daniel Pimenta - LAC Daniel Pimienta, President http://funredes.org http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10287 --- Access Daniel Stern - Africa uconnect.org http://www.connected.org/develop/daniel.html John Dada - Africa http://www.fantsuam.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantsuamn_Foundation Anita Gurumurthy - Asia Anita Gurumurthy - Executive Director http://www.itforchange.net http://www.itforchange.net/itfc/our_team/anita_gurumurthy_-_executive_director. html --- Openness William J. Drake - US http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake/index_html Ang Peng Hwa - Asia http://www.ntu.edu.sg/SCI/about/profile_AngPengHwa.html --- Security Izumi Aizu - Asia http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/aizu.html Ralf Bendrath - Europe http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/arbeit.html Blog: http://bendrath.blogspot.com/ Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America Katitza Rodriguez Pereda --- Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola - Europe Blog: http://bertola.eu/?_l=en&_1=1 Roberto Bissio - LAC http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10256 ---- Opening Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10263 Mr. Adama Samass�kou - Africa. http://www.itu.int/wsis/samassekou_bio.html ----- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 10:40:03 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:40:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <006701c7faca$f758d3c0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Aaron, I think that David's earlier reply to you was much better than any reply that I can think of forumulating. Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron [mailto:nyangkweagien at gmail.com] Sent: September 19, 2007 2:13 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' Michael All that I know, but we have had at tims to engage on debates hovering over human rights issues on this forum. Those rights did not necessarily had something to do with Internet governance. Furthemore, your discuss that brought about our xchanges covered areas that went beyond IG business. I cannot understand some on's ir on that. Aaron On 9/19/07, David Goldstein wrote: > Aaron, > > What Michael means is this list is for certain issues, and these are: > "...a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) > coordination of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). The IGC > comprises individuals who came together in the context of the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to promote global public > interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. > > The IGC's charter and further information can be found at: http://www.igcaucus.org/" > > From http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > So the issue is is this discussion off-topic? And he's probably right. > Not every discussion can take place on every list. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein > Sent: Wednesday, 19 September, 2007 6:39:16 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > That appears a more subtle but very dangrous way of blocking debate in > an open society on a free open source like this forum. May I > understand. Michael to mean that there is a Soviet Union Police on > this forum? > > Aaron > > On 9/18/07, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Without getting into the other aspects of your note below, David > > (should we really be discussing those more general issues here), I > > think the most pertinent question for this list and overall for CS > > in the context of the IGF is whether Corporate Social Responsibility > > and those involved in this should rightly be included within CS > > (from a stakeholder > > perspective) or within the Corporate/private sector grouping... > > > > My understanding in fact is that many of those active in the private > > sector grouping around the IGF see this as an element of their > > overall CSR activities/responsibilities so including them within the > > CS aspect would surely be redundant and inappropriate. > > > > MG > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > > Sent: September 18, 2007 3:04 AM > > To: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > > > > It's fine if you're not bothered Aaron. And the fact is, whether we > > like it or not, it is a capitalist world. And the involvement of > > corporations is important in addressing humanitarian issues and > > those that involve assisting development of either less developed > > countries or people in need of assistance (for want of a better > > description), whether they have a disability or homeless or poor. > > > > Corporate involvement in all of these issues will continue to grow. > > Corporates are pressured to get involved. It's called CORPORATE > > SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. And if you are a mobile phone company, for > > example, it's most likely part of your involvement will involve what > > you are good at. > > > > You may not like capitalism. But it's the way of the world. There is > > no socialist country. And CSR is going to become more and more > > popular in both developed countries and less developed countries. > > > > David > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 September, 2007 7:56:54 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > > David > > > > In an extremely capitalist world, coiled in some sort of > > globalisation, where you have a few amassing all the wealth to the > > detriment of the many, the modus vivendi is for the capitalist to > > look for ways of perpetuating their cause. The said article which I > > am still to read is in that line. the act of giving say 10000 > > telephones is known in marketing as cause marketing meaning th ownrs > > of th product want toi driv this product into the heart of the > > impoverished consumers. I am not bothered > > > > Aaron > > > > On 9/18/07, David Goldstein wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Another article on mobile phones in Africa. I disagree they are > > > ads for the mobile phone industry, but everyone has their opinion. > > > > > > Cheers > > > David > > > > > > Africa: Mobiles for the 'World's Poorest' > > > Nearly half a million people, described by the UN as "the poorest > > > of the poor", will soon be able to make mobile calls. > > > > > > As part of a UN programme to tackle poverty in rural Africa, 79 > > > villages across 10 African countries will be hooked up to cellular > > > networks. > > > > > > It is hoped that the connections will help improve healthcare and > > > education, as well as boosting the local economy. > > > http://arushatimes.co.tz/society_3.htm > > > http://allafrica.com/stories/200709170360.html > > > > > > --------- > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > > Special Assistant To The President > > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > > ASAFE > > P.O.Box 5213 > > Douala-Cameroon > > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > ____ > > ____________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 > > Mail. > > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist/Outcome Mapper > Special Assistant To The President > Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. > ASAFE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Tel. 237 3337 50 22 > Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 > Fax. 237 3342 29 70 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 > Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist/Outcome Mapper Special Assistant To The President Coach of ASAFE Camaroes Street Football Team. ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Tel. 237 3337 50 22 Cell Phone: 237 79 95 71 97 Fax. 237 3342 29 70 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance !DSPAM:2676,46f0e83f86778144516342! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Wed Sep 19 11:37:37 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:37:37 +0200 Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D0900F5FD@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> References: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D0900F5FD@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> Message-ID: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01C352DE@ensms02.iris.se> Dear all, WBU is equal to World Blind Union and EBU is consequently = European Blind Union! Here we seems to have a confusing abbreviations! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Mazzone, Giacomo [mailto:mazzone at ebu.ch] Skickat: den 17 september 2007 08:47 Till: Adam Peake; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Kopia: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: RE: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF Dear Adam and Wolfgang, suggestions are more than welcomed. But to explain how we're currently working, WBU (World Broadcasting Union) of which EBU is part, is currently working on a list of six moderators: one from Asia (very likely a Japanese), one from Arabic countries (very likely an Algerian), two from Europe (BBC and France 24), one from North America and one from Latin America (Brazil). As Adam very well sintetized, the main problem is the availability of that kind of skilled professionals (usually each one of them carry on a weekly or daily programme on the air) and the cost to support to bring them there. Each organization of WBU support entirely their costs and this is why they mainly come from rich countries. Having said so, the list is still open and if you have suggestions, we are ready to study and we can try to see what can be done. On the contrary, if we stick to our existing list, I stress you the point that -once finalized the list- the main problem will be to have people from Civil Society that can properly brief our moderators. Last year we did it thanks to the goodwill of some of you (Adam i.e.) but mainly suggestions and briefs came from business partners. And that was a pity.... even if I believe the moderators were quite balanced and fair. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: dimanche, 16. septembre 2007 12:26 To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 19 12:24:32 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:54:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Message-ID: <20070919162454.EAF53A6D0C@smtp2.electricembers.net> Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the ‘Way Forward’ session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodríguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassékou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGCs nomination for speakers for Rio.doc Type: application/msword Size: 63488 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC nominations for IGF speakers for Rio -with bios.doc Type: application/msword Size: 83968 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGCs nomination for speakers for Rio.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 14184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC nominations for IGF speakers for Rio -with bios.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 34678 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 19 12:35:33 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:05:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Message-ID: <20070919163534.677C3A6C59@smtp2.electricembers.net> I am sure the caucus joins me in thanking and congratulating Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and Norbert Bollow for doing an excellent work after being called to this IGC duty with such a short timeline to accomplish it. I have hurriedly collected information about the recommended speakers that was available and sent in the recommendations. If any recommended speaker wants to change/ update information we can recompile the information and send it once again to the IGF. And thank you Yehuda for the links. Parminder PS: We plan to be able to send names for the 'way forward' session by tomorrow. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:55 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the 'Way Forward' session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodrmguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassikou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 13:53:18 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:53:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] [DDN] E-CONFERENCE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Message-ID: <00fd01c7fae5$f68c8ed0$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> I don't believe that this has been circulated here at all and it may be of interest... MG ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: magdalena.wach at vp.pl > Date: Sep 18, 2007 3:09 PM Subject: [DDN] E-CONFERENCE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT To: digitaldivide at digitaldivide.net Dear Friends, please look at the following information. Kind regards, Magdalena Wach sslayen at iisd.ca napisa�: >E-CONFERENCE ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT >Join the discussion at http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ From September 17 to 28, the International Institute for Sustainable >Development (IISD) is hosting an e-conference to engage researchers, >practitioners and policy analysts in an open discussion on the >intersections between Internet governance (IG) and sustainable >development (SD). > >Sustainable development efforts cannot be conceived without global >communications and knowledge exchange. Therefore, the outcomes of the >Internet governance debate will affect our ability to manage the social, >environmental and economic factors of sustainable development. To >explore this intersection further, IISD has commissioned a series of >scoping studies that aim to present the viewpoints of the two >communities on five key issues that are common to both: governance >processes; economic barriers to development; capacity-building; access >to local knowledge; and indicators for development. > >The purpose of this e-conference is to give participants an opportunity >to share their thoughts, comments or questions regarding the content >presented in these scoping studies. By inviting comments on these >studies from members of both communities, and by comparing and >contrasting the different perspectives that emerge, we hope to lay the >foundation for a research and action agenda that will begin bringing the >worlds of IG and SD closer together. > >Follow this link to join the discussion: > http://www.iisd.org/infosoc/gov/igsd/ _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE at digitaldivide.net http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to digitaldivide-request at mailman.edc.org with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. -- thank you Ahmed Eisa GDCO - Sudan Chairman -- thank you Ahmed Eisa GDCO - Sudan Chairman -- thank you Ahmed M. M. Eisa Chairman of GDCO - Sudan www.gedarefcity.org www.gedaref.com !DSPAM:2676,46f15ab586772830310001! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From shailam at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 14:54:31 2007 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:54:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] thanks and appreciation :IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070919163534.677C3A6C59@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <667806.64221.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi All I have been following the discussion thus far . I appreciate all the work that has been put in by all of you . It takes much sacrifice of personal time and and resources to serve and lead and accomplish as much as all you of have. Regards and congratulations to the caucus !!! Shaila Rao Mistry President Jayco Interface technology California Parminder wrote: v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } I am sure the caucus joins me in thanking and congratulating Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and Norbert Bollow for doing an excellent work after being called to this IGC duty with such a short timeline to accomplish it. I have hurriedly collected information about the recommended speakers that was available and sent in the recommendations. If any recommended speaker wants to change/ update information we can recompile the information and send it once again to the IGF. And thank you Yehuda for the links. Parminder PS: We plan to be able to send names for the ‘way forward’ session by tomorrow. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net --------------------------------- From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:55 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the ‘Way Forward’ session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodrmguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassikou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Jeene ke hain chaar din, baaqi hain bekaar din Jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye, jaaye jaaye ! Ek baar jo jaaye, jawaani phir na aaye ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 19 15:13:53 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:13:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF References: Message-ID: <001d01c7faf1$3b3cc850$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> My congratulations to our (I mean CS) speakers. I hope we'll get as soon as possible an abstract of their speach or at least the issues and proposals they intend to express through it. Best to all Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT-France CS Working Group on Communications Networks' Governance ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:15 PM Subject: Re: [governance] final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF > David, Parminder, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri; > > Good-Job! All great choices from a world full of wonderful people. > > Please find below links too bio information with regard to the Speakers. > Only a few have blogs, if you find a link please post a ref. > > - > > speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: > > --- Critical Internet Resources > > Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific > http://www.circleid.com/members/731/ > > > Carlos Alfonso - South America > > CARLOS ALFONSO: Information Network for the Third Sector > Carlos Afonso has participated in the evolution of the new ICTs since > their > introduction in LAC region by promoting and defending the interests of the > third sector. He has a broad knowledge of ICT issues, and his experience > is > transversal to most of the issues related to ICTs: free software, digital > inclusion, intellectual property, Internet governance, etc. Carlos Afonso > is > part of the RITS team, a NGO-oriented services and capacity building > network on > information and communication technologies using the Internet as its main > medium. In the late 60's he was an important person fighting against the > dictatorship in Brazil. > He was in exile in Chile, Panama and Canada. This last country adopts him > as a > Canadian citizen. During the re-democratisation process, Mr. Afonso > worked for > democratising the access to communications. The amnesty allowed him to > return > to Brazil. Carlos Afonso and Herbert de Souza (known as Betihno) founded > one > of the most important Brazilian NGOs, the Brazilian Institute for Social > and > Economic Analysis, IBASE. Mr Afonso designed, implemented and managed the > AlterNex project, the first computer-based communications and information > system in Latin America dedicated to serve civil society organizations. He > is a > co-founder of the Association for Progressive Communications (APC). In > 1991-1992, Mr Afonso proposed and coordinated the "UNCED Information > Strategy > Project in Rio" (UNCED ISP/Rio), first Internet project specifically > developed > for a UN conference. ISP/Rio's aims were to provide communications and > information through the Internet so that organizations which had not been > able > to come to Rio was able to follow up on the events via the network. > Carlos > Afonso is also an independent consultant of the UNDP, IDRC, among other > organizations. He is author of many > books, articles and studies in different languages in relation to Internet > development political and social issues. One of his fields of > specialization > and expertise is Internet Governance and ICANN. Besides his technical > knowledge, he has recognized intellectual and political autonomy and broad > respect for his ethical and democratic behaviour. > http://www.rits.org.br > > > --- Diversity > > Monthian Buntan - Asia > Mr Monthian Buntan, Thai Association of the Blind (TAB), > http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/ > > > Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa > Nnenna Nwakanma holds a triple Bachelors, in the Social Sciences, History > and > English and a Masters degree in International Relations and Law. She has > done > large-scale work within International development organisations and > institutions in Africa on Information, Documentation and International > Relations. Among them, The Home Health Education Service, The Helen Keller > Foundation and The African Development Bank. Co-founder of different > pan-African organizations: The Free Software and Open Source Foundation > for > Africa (FOSSFA), The Africa Network of > Information Society Actors (ANISA), and the Africa Civil Society for the > Information Society (ACSIS). One of the major Civil Society Actors in the > World > Summit on the Information Society, she represents the African Civil > Society on > the Digital Solidarity Fund, and advises on the Africa Information Society > Initiatiave. Today she is Council Chair of the Free Software and Open > Source > Foundation for Africa. > > > Daniel Pimenta - LAC > Daniel Pimienta, President http://funredes.org > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10287 > > > --- Access > > Daniel Stern - Africa > uconnect.org > http://www.connected.org/develop/daniel.html > > John Dada - Africa > http://www.fantsuam.org/ > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantsuamn_Foundation > > Anita Gurumurthy - Asia > Anita Gurumurthy - Executive Director http://www.itforchange.net > http://www.itforchange.net/itfc/our_team/anita_gurumurthy_-_executive_director. > html > > > --- Openness > > William J. Drake - US > http://www.cpsr.org/Members/wdrake/index_html > > Ang Peng Hwa - Asia > http://www.ntu.edu.sg/SCI/about/profile_AngPengHwa.html > > > --- Security > > Izumi Aizu - Asia > http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/aizu.html > > Ralf Bendrath - Europe > http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/arbeit.html > Blog: http://bendrath.blogspot.com/ > > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda > > > --- Emerging Issues > > Vittorio Bertola - Europe > Blog: http://bertola.eu/?_l=en&_1=1 > > Roberto Bissio - LAC > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10256 > > > ---- Opening > > Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa > http://www.ngocongo.org/index.php?what=pag&id=10263 > > Mr. Adama Samassékou - Africa. > http://www.itu.int/wsis/samassekou_bio.html > > ----- > End > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10703 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Sep 19 15:18:09 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:18:09 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF References: <9BB211A65FCBFD43B95F67BA2485759D0900F5FD@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch> <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01C352DE@ensms02.iris.se> Message-ID: <002f01c7faf1$d231f460$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> ...and EBU stands also for European Broadcasting Union. Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kicki Nordström" To: ; "Mazzone, Giacomo" ; "Adam Peake" ; ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: SV: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF Dear all, WBU is equal to World Blind Union and EBU is consequently = European Blind Union! Here we seems to have a confusing abbreviations! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Mazzone, Giacomo [mailto:mazzone at ebu.ch] Skickat: den 17 september 2007 08:47 Till: Adam Peake; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Kopia: governance at lists.cpsr.org Ämne: RE: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF Dear Adam and Wolfgang, suggestions are more than welcomed. But to explain how we're currently working, WBU (World Broadcasting Union) of which EBU is part, is currently working on a list of six moderators: one from Asia (very likely a Japanese), one from Arabic countries (very likely an Algerian), two from Europe (BBC and France 24), one from North America and one from Latin America (Brazil). As Adam very well sintetized, the main problem is the availability of that kind of skilled professionals (usually each one of them carry on a weekly or daily programme on the air) and the cost to support to bring them there. Each organization of WBU support entirely their costs and this is why they mainly come from rich countries. Having said so, the list is still open and if you have suggestions, we are ready to study and we can try to see what can be done. On the contrary, if we stick to our existing list, I stress you the point that -once finalized the list- the main problem will be to have people from Civil Society that can properly brief our moderators. Last year we did it thanks to the goodwill of some of you (Adam i.e.) but mainly suggestions and briefs came from business partners. And that was a pity.... even if I believe the moderators were quite balanced and fair. Giacomo -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: dimanche, 16. septembre 2007 12:26 To: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Should we make also proposals for moderators? >Who knows good TV journalists familiar with the >issue from developing countries? South African >Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, >TV Globo? > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way of getting them to Rio. Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I guess paid. Adam >Wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > > >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in >Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >supporter > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >END >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ----------------------------------------- ************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway ************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10703 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Wed Sep 19 17:55:12 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:55:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070919163534.677C3A6C59@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070919163534.677C3A6C59@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <55A6FD3C-42C5-447B-89F1-C6B7198FBA38@privaterra.info> Having not posted on the list in a long while... let me just say that it's an interesting set of speakers. Seems like there are a lot of familiar faces. Thanks to everyone for having put together the list. I do hope everyone who goes - finds ways to offset their carbon emissions. regards Robert On 19-Sep-07, at 12:35 PM, Parminder wrote: > I am sure the caucus joins me in thanking and congratulating > Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and > Norbert Bollow for doing an excellent work after being called to > this IGC duty with such a short timeline to accomplish it. > > -------------- 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 Sep 19 23:00:38 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:00:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Africa telecoms summit to promote Internet access Message-ID: <87065.94717.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Africa telecoms summit to promote Internet access [Reuters] A U.N.-backed Africa communications summit, "Connect Africa", in Rwanda in late October, will seek to boost high-speed Internet access to match the continent's explosive growth in mobile phones, officials said on Wednesday. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N19292140.htm --------- David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 (mobile); +61 2 9665 5773 (home) "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 cnd at knowprose.com Thu Sep 20 00:07:35 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:07:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] ACCESS TO ICT/ INTERNET In-Reply-To: <20070919121611.C86952201FD@quill.bollow.ch> References: <01b901c7f951$2805e290$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20070919121611.C86952201FD@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <46F1F207.1080606@knowprose.com> I believe all of this, and I have been called a 'digital divide activist' on occasions - but the issue is really about connecting people. I've found that when writing about the many things that are wrapped in the flag of 'Digital Divide', it is better to speak to the particulars instead of addressing all the meanings. Internet access, or lack thereof, is still internet access. Access to broadband is also an issue, and so forth. Digital Solidarity is like Digital Empowerment or Digital Democracy or... whatever. Digital is overused, the small 'e' in front of commerce and government does nothing, etc. Dressing up the meat of the issue is good, but when you drown the meat in condiments do not be surprised if the palate only tastes the condiments. :-) Norbert Bollow wrote: > What I like about the term "digital divide" is precisely that it > expresses this discontent with a situation in which those who are > already disadvantaged unfairly become even more disadvantaged, > _without_ implying a particular model for describing and trying to > address the specifics of the problem. > > I think that it's important to separate this emotional side of the > issue from the needed scientifically fact-oriented processes for > addressing it. > > I often put "digital divide" in quotation marks (as e.g. in the > posting that you replied to, see below) in order to emphasize that I > consider it an emotional term rather than a precisely-defined one. > > By contrast, "digital solidarity" is a term which totally fails to > make this separation and which is therefore IMO totally unsuitable > as a basis for any kind of fact-oriented discussion of the issues. > Nevertheless "Digital Solidarity" would be a great name e.g. for an > NGO aiming at promoting a particular set of solution strategies for > "digital divide" problems. -- Taran Rampersad http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com 'Making Your Mark in Second Life: Business, Land, and Money' http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/9780596514174/ Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 01:52:33 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:22:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070919163534.677C3A6C59@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070920055232.97D1DE0434@smtp3.electricembers.net> We are trying to contact all the nominated persons if they will be traveling to Rio. I am not able to locate email ids of the following. Adama Samassékou Monthian Buntan Any help with contact information will be appreciated. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio I am sure the caucus joins me in thanking and congratulating Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and Norbert Bollow for doing an excellent work after being called to this IGC duty with such a short timeline to accomplish it. I have hurriedly collected information about the recommended speakers that was available and sent in the recommendations. If any recommended speaker wants to change/ update information we can recompile the information and send it once again to the IGF. And thank you Yehuda for the links. Parminder PS: We plan to be able to send names for the ‘way forward’ session by tomorrow. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:55 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the ‘Way Forward’ session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodrmguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassikou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 01:58:58 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:28:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070920055232.97D1DE0434@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070920055857.5391FE04C1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Also Katitza Rodríguez Pereda. Mails to her id we have are bouncing back. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:23 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio We are trying to contact all the nominated persons if they will be traveling to Rio. I am not able to locate email ids of the following. Adama Samassékou Monthian Buntan Any help with contact information will be appreciated. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio I am sure the caucus joins me in thanking and congratulating Michael Gurstein, Avri Doria, Dan Krimm, David Goldstein and Norbert Bollow for doing an excellent work after being called to this IGC duty with such a short timeline to accomplish it. I have hurriedly collected information about the recommended speakers that was available and sent in the recommendations. If any recommended speaker wants to change/ update information we can recompile the information and send it once again to the IGF. And thank you Yehuda for the links. Parminder PS: We plan to be able to send names for the ‘way forward’ session by tomorrow. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-bounces at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:55 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the ‘Way Forward’ session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodrmguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassikou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali -------------- 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 Thu Sep 20 02:44:51 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:44:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF Message-ID: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, There was one session to finalise following yesterday's NomComm recommendations for the upcoming IGF meeting, on behalf of the IGC. The recommendations for the session, The Way Forward, are: - Milton Mueller - North America - Sisule Musungu - Africa. The full list is below. Regards, David ----- Forwarded Message ---- Hi all, As Parminder mentioned, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri and I met today (19th) via teleconference and discussed the nominees and selected the following speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: ---Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific Carlos Alfonso - South America ---Diversity Monthian Buntan - Asia Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa Daniel Pimenta - LAC ---Access Daniel Stern - Africa John Dada - Africa Anita Gurumurty - Asia --- Openness William Drake - US Ang Peng Hwa - Asia ---Security Izumi Aizu - Asia Ralf Bendrath - Europe Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America ---Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola - Europe Roberto Bissio - LAC ----Opening Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa Adama Samassékou - Africa. ----The Way Forward: Milton Mueller - North America Sisule Musungu - Africa. --------- 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 20 02:50:46 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:50:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio In-Reply-To: <20070920055857.5391FE04C1@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <20070920055857.5391FE04C1@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: addresses for Monthian and Katitza sent. Don't know Samassékou. Adam At 11:28 AM +0530 9/20/07, Parminder wrote: > >Also Katitza Rodríguez Pereda. Mails to her id >we have are bouncing back. 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: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:23 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio > >We are trying to contact all the nominated >persons if they will be traveling to Rio. I am >not able to locate email ids of the following. > >Adama Samassékou >Monthian Buntan > >Any help with contact information will be appreciated. > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change, Bangalore >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 >Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 >www.ITforChange.net > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Sep 20 03:45:02 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:45:02 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Good balance. Here is my count Africa: 6 Asiea-Pacific: 6 Latin America: 4 North America: 2 Europe 2 Wolfgang ---Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific Carlos Alfonso - South America ---Diversity Monthian Buntan - Asia Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa Daniel Pimenta - LAC ---Access Daniel Stern - Africa John Dada - Africa Anita Gurumurty - Asia --- Openness William Drake - US Ang Peng Hwa - Asia ---Security Izumi Aizu - Asia Ralf Bendrath - Europe Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America ---Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola - Europe Roberto Bissio - LAC ----Opening Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa Adama Samassékou - Africa. ----The Way Forward: Milton Mueller - North America Sisule Musungu - Africa. --------- 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. www.yahoo.com.au/mail ____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Sep 20 05:09:28 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:09:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Wolfgang quoted "Good balance." OK Wolfgang, if you mean the geographical one. We still ignore where all are coming from (organisation, mandates, ...) and what -on our behalf- they intend to tell the audience in Rio. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: ; "David Goldstein" Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:45 AM Subject: SV: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF Good balance. Here is my count Africa: 6 Asiea-Pacific: 6 Latin America: 4 North America: 2 Europe 2 Wolfgang ---Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific Carlos Alfonso - South America ---Diversity Monthian Buntan - Asia Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa Daniel Pimenta - LAC ---Access Daniel Stern - Africa John Dada - Africa Anita Gurumurty - Asia --- Openness William Drake - US Ang Peng Hwa - Asia ---Security Izumi Aizu - Asia Ralf Bendrath - Europe Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America ---Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola - Europe Roberto Bissio - LAC ----Opening Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa Adama Samassékou - Africa. ----The Way Forward: Milton Mueller - North America Sisule Musungu - Africa. -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10708 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 06:31:22 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:01:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20070920103119.3C8F4678A1@smtp1.electricembers.net> Yes, extra-ordinary balance. Id even say a new world balance. This sure now looks like an IGF with its central theme being development. It at least looks in civil society recommendations, one day it would look in the IGF proper as well. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:15 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein > Subject: SV: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC > for IGF > > > Good balance. Here is my count > > Africa: 6 > Asiea-Pacific: 6 > Latin America: 4 > North America: 2 > Europe 2 > > > Wolfgang > > > ---Critical Internet Resources > > Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific > Carlos Alfonso - South America > > > ---Diversity > > Monthian Buntan - Asia > Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa > Daniel Pimenta - LAC > > ---Access > > Daniel Stern - Africa > John Dada - Africa > Anita Gurumurty - Asia > > --- Openness > > William Drake - US > Ang Peng Hwa - Asia > > ---Security > > Izumi Aizu - Asia > Ralf Bendrath - Europe > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America > > > ---Emerging Issues > > Vittorio Bertola - Europe > Roberto Bissio - LAC > > ----Opening > > Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa > Adama Samassékou - Africa. > > ----The Way Forward: > Milton Mueller - North America > Sisule Musungu - Africa. > > > --------- > 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 > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 06:48:59 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:48:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Message-ID: <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> jlfullsack schrieb: > We still ignore where all are coming from (organisation, mandates, ...) > and what -on our behalf- they intend to tell the audience in Rio. I have been nominated for the "security" session, and if I end up there, I won't be speaking on anyone's behalf, sorry. If this would be so, I would need a mandate on substance etc. which is not the case. Everybody who has been involed in the Internet Governance Caucus a bit longer knows that I have actively participated in the privacy & security discussions in WSIS from early 2003 on. The caucus positions on privacy and security are well documented in various submissions and papers, and mostly, they were drafted by me or my colleagues from the privacy&security working group. If this is not enough for a minimal level of trust, I am really sorry. I also don't intend to prepare a "speech" or something like that in advance, as the format of the main sessions will more be like an interactive roundtable. If anyone has specific points he or she wants to be raised, this can of course be discusses here or send to me privately. But if I really raise them will depend on the flow of the discussion on the panel. The same applies to points I will want to raise myself. By the way: I have absolutely no mandate from my university, it is just my affiliation. Nor do I have a mandate from any other organization. Actually, this is an interesting case compared to other policy fields - the role of individuals is much bigger in internet governance policy processes. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 08:45:53 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:15:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20070920124549.1FA14A6CC4@smtp2.electricembers.net> Anyone has Sisule Musungu's email id? Pl send offline. Thanks. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:15 PM > To: Governance Mailing List > Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for > IGF > > Hi all, > > There was one session to finalise following yesterday's NomComm > recommendations for the upcoming IGF meeting, on behalf of the IGC. > > The recommendations for the session, The Way Forward, are: > - Milton Mueller - North America > - Sisule Musungu - Africa. > > The full list is below. > > Regards, > David > > ----- Forwarded Message ---- > > Hi all, > > As Parminder mentioned, Michael, Dan, Norbert, Avri and I met today (19th) > via teleconference and discussed the nominees and selected the following > speakers on behalf of IGC for IGF: > > ---Critical Internet Resources > > Paul Wilson - Asia Pacific > Carlos Alfonso - South America > > > ---Diversity > > Monthian Buntan - Asia > Nnenna Nwakanma - Africa > Daniel Pimenta - LAC > > ---Access > > Daniel Stern - Africa > John Dada - Africa > Anita Gurumurty - Asia > > --- Openness > > William Drake - US > Ang Peng Hwa - Asia > > ---Security > > Izumi Aizu - Asia > Ralf Bendrath - Europe > Katitza Rodriguez Pereda - South America > > > ---Emerging Issues > > Vittorio Bertola - Europe > Roberto Bissio - LAC > > ----Opening > > Anriette Esterhuysen - Africa > Adama Samassékou - Africa. > > ----The Way Forward: > Milton Mueller - North America > Sisule Musungu - Africa. > > > --------- > 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 > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. > www.yahoo.com.au/mail > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. > http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > __________ > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 08:54:24 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:24:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Message-ID: <20070920125426.5BBA0E1CF4@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Sir Te following are the speakers recommended by the IG Caucus for the ‘Way Forward’ session at IGF, Rio. Best Parminder Session Name Brief Bio The Way Forward Milton Mueller * Milton Mueller is a Professor at the School of Information Studies, Syracuse University. He directs the School's Graduate Program in Telecommunications and Network Management. Mueller received the Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School, in 1989. He co-directs the Convergence Center, which focuses on the technical, management and policy problems of converging media. He is a member of the Internet Governance Project. * Dr. Mueller's research focuses on property rights, institutions and regulation in telecommunication and information industries. His book Ruling the Root: Internet Governance and the Taming of Cyberspace was published by MIT Press in May 2002. He is one of the founding members of ICANN's Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) within the Generic Names Supporting Organization, was elected to serve on the ICANN's GNSO Council in 2001 and 2002. Sisule Musungu * Mr. Musungu is a lawyer and he is currently in charge of the South Centre's project on intellectual property under the Centre's Programme on International Trade and Development. He is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and a member of the Law Society of Kenya and has previously worked as a legal intern and an associate in the law firm Hamilton Harrison and Mathews in Nairobi. * He is also a researcher in human rights (with a special interest in socio-economic and cultural rights), economic development and democratization in Africa and has worked as a consultant to Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) Access to Essential Medicines Campaign in Kenya and to Health Action International - Africa (HAI Africa), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) as well as for the Kenyan Government. ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9:55 PM To: 'IGF' Cc: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space' Subject: IGC's nominations for speakers for Rio Dear Sir Please find enclosed a list of nominations from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the main sessions at Rio. Nominations for the ‘Way Forward’ session will be forwarded by tomorrow. Please let us know if any more information about the recommended speakers is required by you. Thanks, and best regards. Parminder Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus’s Recommendations for Speakers for the Main Sessions at IGF, Rio Sr. No Session Name Organisational Affiliation Designation Country 1 Critical Internet Resources Paul Wilson Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Director General Australia Carlos Afonso RITS (Information Network for the Third Sector) Planning Director Brazil 2 Diversity Monthian Buntan Thai Blind People's Foundation (TBPF) Executive Director Thailand Nnenna Nwakanma Independent Consultant Ivory Coast Daniel Pimienta FUNREDES Head Dominican Republic 3 Access Daniel Stern U-Connect Programs Director Uganda John Dada Fantsuam Foundation Programs Director, Nigeria Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Executive Director India 4. Openness William Drake Graduate Institute of International Studies Director -Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance Geneva- Switzerland Ang Peng Hwa Nanyang Technological University Associate professor & Chair-SCI Singapore 5 Security Mr. Izumi Aizu The Japanese Institute of Global Communications (GLOCOM) Executive Research Fellow Japan Ralf Bendrath University of Bremen Research Fellow Germany . Katitza Rodríguez Pereda CPSR-Peru Vice President Peru 6 Emerging Issues Vittorio Bertola Dynamic Fun Founding partner; President & Chief Technical Office Italy Roberto Bissio Third World Institute Executive Director Uruguay 7. Opening Session Anriette Esterhuysen Association for Progressive Communications Executive Director South Africa Adama Samassékou Peoples' Movement for Human Rights Education Founder Mali -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 20 09:12:42 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Swiss work to bridge Africa's digital divide - F.Y.I. Message-ID: Swiss work to bridge Africa's digital divide SwissInfo.org - September 20, 2007 - 11:32 AM Switzerland has backed a project to boost high-speed internet access in Africa to help bridge the digital divide with the rest of the world. The Connect Africa initiative will officially be launched in Rwanda next month and aims to make internet connectivity widely and cheaply accessible. Walter Fust, director of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), said "the continent should no longer be marginalised" in its access to the worldwide web. The head of the SDC made his comments at a presentation in New York on Wednesday, organised together with the United Nation's Global Alliance for Information and Communication Technology and Development and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Fust said a planned Connect Africa summit should keep the issue high on the political agenda. It will also broaden the discussion to innovative financing mechanisms and local content, and support "the mobilising of the doers, not only of the talkers", he added. Switzerland has pledged SFr400,000 ($340,000) to the initiative. Unleashing Africa's potential Fust pointed out that the costs of internet and telephone connections in Africa are very high because of the bad state of infrastructure. Mobile phones overtook fixed lines on the continent six years ago and outnumber them nearly five to one, with 137.2 million subscribers in 2005, the ITU says. In sub-Saharan Africa, nine out of every ten telephone subscribers are using a mobile. But the shortage of fixed lines has limited internet access, enjoyed by fewer than four out of every 100 Africans. And the cost of internet connectivity in Africa, says the World Bank, is the highest in the world � some $250-300 per month � and out of the reach of most Africans. Mohsen Khalil, from the World Bank, said the initiative would create an information revolution in Africa. "When you give access to a human being you unleash the power of human innovation and entrepreneurship. It is really so powerful all they need is access," he said. Global tax Switzerland is a firm supporter of efforts to bridge the digital divide between wealthy and undeveloped nations. In May 2007 the Swiss communications minister, Moritz Leuenberger, unveiled a proposal for a global tax on "information" at the UN in Geneva. It is aimed at financing new information and communication technologies in regions where people have little or no access to the internet. Such a tax would be raised, for example, on paid-for information and computers, while low-cost providers would be exempt. "Today more than half the world's population don't even have a telephone," he said. "Four out of five people don't have access to the internet. They are cut off from information and any possibility of exchanging information, training or improving themselves." Swissinfo with agencies: INTERNET PENETRATION (% POPULATION AND GROWTH 2000-2007) North America: 69%. Australia/Oceania: 54%. Europe: 40%. Latin America: 20%. Asia: 12%. Middle East: 10%. Africa: 4%. Switzerland: 67.8% (139% growth). United States: 69.7% (115.2% growth). Britain: 62.3% (144.2% growth). South Africa: 10.3% (112.5% growth). Nigeria: 3.1% (2,400% growth). Democratic Republic of the Congo: 0.2% (28,000% growth). Ethiopia: 0.2% (1,540% growth). CONTEXT Connect Africa is a global multi-stakeholder partnership to mobilize the human, financial and technical resources required to bridge major gaps in information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure across the continent. The aim is to support affordable connectivity and applications and services to stimulate economic growth, employment and development throughout Africa. Connect Africa will be officially launched at a international summit in Kigali, Rwanda on October 30, 2007. --Ref: Story: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=8235212 Print View: http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=43&sid=8235212 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 09:36:02 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:36:02 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808D9CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <46F27742.7090802@rits.org.br> Hi Wolf and all, I missed this suggestion. Just a reminder that the Brazilian hosts and the Brazilian civil society caucus are opposed to the "tv show" format. I am not sure how this will be worked out at this point. --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> Should we make also proposals for moderators? Who knows good TV >> journalists familiar with the issue from developing countries? South >> African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, TV Globo? >> > > > > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as > it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see > any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way > of getting them to Rio. > > Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I > guess paid. > > Adam > > > >> Wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF >> >> >> >> Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >> personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >> suggestions about names for a while. >> >> I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >> But, we should consider: >> >> There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >> heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >> format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >> range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >> respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >> bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >> recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >> chance of being there.) >> >> So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >> diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >> three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >> to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. >> >> Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >> or, at least you have already started to find out. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> Opening Ceremony >> >> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) >> >> Delphine Nana >> >> >> Critical Internet Resources >> >> Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >> Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. >> >> >> Access >> >> Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >> more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >> information and communications systems over the last 15 years. >> (*strong preference*) >> >> Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. >> >> >> Diversity >> >> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >> Blind. (*strong preference*) >> >> Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) >> >> (I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >> president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >> Athens.) >> >> >> Openness >> >> Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >> intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >> preference*) >> >> Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe >> (was a panelist in >> Athens) >> >> Michael Geist (Canada) >> >> Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >> Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. >> >> >> Security >> >> Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >> Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) >> >> Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy >> issues. >> >> Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >> cybercrime and privacy issues. >> >> (Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >> civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >> respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >> session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) >> >> >> Taking Stock and the way forward >> >> William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >> Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland. >> >> >> Emerging Issues >> >> No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >> can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >> supporter >> >> (Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >> forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >> futurists etc. Thoughts?) >> >> >> END >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 20 09:52:45 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:22:45 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F27742.7090802@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070920135243.A5C86A6C8D@smtp2.electricembers.net> Carlos We (as in, my organization) and many other people are opposed to this TV show format. I am fine if MAG members, or whoever knowledgeable about the issues is available at hand, does the moderation. My problem is more with journalist moderators, than with a format where questions are asked etc. which part are the Brazilians, gov and CS, opposed to. 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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:06 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake > Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF > > Hi Wolf and all, I missed this suggestion. Just a reminder that the > Brazilian hosts and the Brazilian civil society caucus are opposed to > the "tv show" format. I am not sure how this will be worked out at this > point. > > --c.a. > > Adam Peake wrote: > > At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> Should we make also proposals for moderators? Who knows good TV > >> journalists familiar with the issue from developing countries? South > >> African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, TV Globo? > >> > > > > > > > > If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as > > it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see > > any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way > > of getting them to Rio. > > > > Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I > > guess paid. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> Wolfgang > >> > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> > >> Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > >> Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 > >> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF > >> > >> > >> > >> Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my > >> personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for > >> suggestions about names for a while. > >> > >> I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. > >> But, we should consider: > >> > >> There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we > >> heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open > >> format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad > >> range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to > >> respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to > >> bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only > >> recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good > >> chance of being there.) > >> > >> So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic > >> diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or > >> three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need > >> to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >> > >> Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, > >> or, at least you have already started to find out. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> Opening Ceremony > >> > >> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the > Blind. > >> > >> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >> > >> Delphine Nana > >> > >> > >> Critical Internet Resources > >> > >> Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in > >> Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > >> > >> > >> Access > >> > >> Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in > >> more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of > >> information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > >> (*strong preference*) > >> > >> Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > >> > >> > >> Diversity > >> > >> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the > >> Blind. (*strong preference*) > >> > >> Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >> > >> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >> > >> (I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is > >> president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in > >> Athens.) > >> > >> > >> Openness > >> > >> Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on > >> intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong > >> preference*) > >> > >> Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > >> (was a panelist in > >> Athens) > >> > >> Michael Geist (Canada) > >> > >> Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio > >> Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > >> > >> > >> Security > >> > >> Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative > >> Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >> > >> Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy > >> issues. > >> > >> Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: > >> cybercrime and privacy issues. > >> > >> (Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to > >> civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to > >> respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the > >> session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > >> > >> > >> Taking Stock and the way forward > >> > >> William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and > >> Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies > >> Geneva, Switzerland. > >> > >> > >> Emerging Issues > >> > >> No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth > >> can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu > >> supporter > >> > >> (Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very > >> forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, > >> futurists etc. Thoughts?) > >> > >> > >> END > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 20 09:54:54 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:54:54 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF In-Reply-To: <20070920135245.072F42414457@mx.rits.org.br> References: <20070920135245.072F42414457@mx.rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46F27BAE.4010700@rits.org.br> Just the "tv show", not the debate, of course. frt rgds --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Carlos > > We (as in, my organization) and many other people are opposed to this TV > show format. I am fine if MAG members, or whoever knowledgeable about the > issues is available at hand, does the moderation. > > My problem is more with journalist moderators, than with a format where > questions are asked etc. which part are the Brazilians, gov and CS, opposed > to. > > 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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 7:06 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> Subject: Re: SV: [governance] Speakers for IGF >> >> Hi Wolf and all, I missed this suggestion. Just a reminder that the >> Brazilian hosts and the Brazilian civil society caucus are opposed to >> the "tv show" format. I am not sure how this will be worked out at this >> point. >> >> --c.a. >> >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> At 11:49 AM +0200 9/16/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >>>> Should we make also proposals for moderators? Who knows good TV >>>> journalists familiar with the issue from developing countries? South >>>> African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), Al Jazijra, TV Globo? >>>> >>> >>> >>> If you know the names of people who will be attending, why not? But as >>> it probably costs a lot to invite a journalist of this type I don't see >>> any point in taking time to discuss names unless there's a realistic way >>> of getting them to Rio. >>> >>> Last year I believe the european broadcasting union brought them and I >>> guess paid. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> Wolfgang >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> >>>> Fra: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>>> Sendt: sø 16-09-2007 11:28 >>>> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> Emne: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >>>> personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >>>> suggestions about names for a while. >>>> >>>> I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >>>> But, we should consider: >>>> >>>> There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last we >>>> heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >>>> format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >>>> range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able to >>>> respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money to >>>> bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >>>> recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >>>> chance of being there.) >>>> >>>> So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >>>> diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two or >>>> three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but need >>>> to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. >>>> >>>> Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >>>> or, at least you have already started to find out. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> Opening Ceremony >>>> >>>> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >> Blind. >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) >>>> >>>> Delphine Nana >>>> >>>> >>>> Critical Internet Resources >>>> >>>> Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >>>> Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. >>>> >>>> >>>> Access >>>> >>>> Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience in >>>> more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment of >>>> information and communications systems over the last 15 years. >>>> (*strong preference*) >>>> >>>> Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. >>>> >>>> >>>> Diversity >>>> >>>> Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >>>> Blind. (*strong preference*) >>>> >>>> Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. >>>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) >>>> >>>> (I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >>>> president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in >>>> Athens.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Openness >>>> >>>> Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >>>> intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong >>>> preference*) >>>> >>>> Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe >>>> (was a panelist in >>>> Athens) >>>> >>>> Michael Geist (Canada) >>>> >>>> Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >>>> Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. >>>> >>>> >>>> Security >>>> >>>> Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >>>> Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) >>>> >>>> Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy >>>> issues. >>>> >>>> Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >>>> cybercrime and privacy issues. >>>> >>>> (Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >>>> civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >>>> respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >>>> session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Taking Stock and the way forward >>>> >>>> William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >>>> Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >>>> Geneva, Switzerland. >>>> >>>> >>>> Emerging Issues >>>> >>>> No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark Shuttleworth >>>> can attend. South Africa, Internet security entrepreneur and Ubuntu >>>> supporter >>>> >>>> (Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >>>> forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >>>> futurists etc. Thoughts?) >>>> >>>> >>>> END >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> 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 > > > > -- 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 veni at veni.com Thu Sep 20 09:59:11 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:59:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> Adam and all, At ISOC-Bulgaria, we are trying to send some new people to the IGF. While we can't define names today, there are chances, that you may be able to see some Bulgarians in Rio. We have been able to contribute with a workshop on CIR, organized together with the World bank, GIPI, CDT and others - http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37. We are also working on bringing some of our members to the Best Practices Forum (http://intgovforum.org/BPP.php); as some of you may know, the current President, the current Prime Minister, and the Minister of ICT (chairman of the State Agency for ICT) are all members of ISOC. Best, Veni P.S. I think one of the main problems that we are facing, is that at every event for years now we see the same people. I personally plan not to go to Rio. ISOC-Bulgaria has also other skilled people who can participate, and I will try to help them get there. It would be good to see if my initiative will be followed by others. By the way, I gave such an example some time ago when I resigned from the Advisory Group to the IGF, after I felt I've done my duty there with serving for more than one year. v. At 18:28 9/16/2007 +0900, you wrote: >Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of my >personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >suggestions about names for a while. > >I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >But, we should consider: > >There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last >we heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a broad >range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker able >to respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no money >to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >chance of being there.) > >So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two >or three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but >need to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. > >Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in Rio, >or, at least you have already started to find out. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > >Opening Ceremony > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the Blind. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >Delphine Nana > > >Critical Internet Resources > >Milton Mueller (USA). Professor, Director, Master of Science in >Telecommunications and Network Management, Syracuse University. > > >Access > >Mike Jensen (South Africa), independent consultant with experience >in more than 30 countries in Africa assisting in the establishment >of information and communications systems over the last 15 years. > (*strong preference*) > >Sean o Siochru (Ireland). Access and financing. > > >Diversity > >Monthian Buntan (Thailand). President, Thailand Association of the >Blind. (*strong preference*) > >Ronaldo Lemos (Brazil). Digital culture, Creative Commons. > >Anriette Esterhuysen (was a panelist in Athens) > >(I think Adama Samassekou from Mali might be picked up -- he is >president of the African Academy of Languages. Was a panelist in Athens.) > > >Openness > >Sisule Musungu (Kenya). Policy analyst based in Geneva, consults on >intellectual property and free expression issues. (*strong preference*) > >Georg Greve (Germany). Free Software Foundation Europe > (was a panelist in Athens) > >Michael Geist (Canada) > >Pedro Paranagua Moniz (Brazil) Professor of Law at Fundacao Getulio >Vargas (FGV) School of Law in Rio de Janeiro, A2K Brazil. > > >Security > >Ralf Bendrath (Germany). University of Bremen, The Collaborative >Research Center (Dynamic Coalition on Privacy) > >Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil). A2K Brazil, lawyer privacy issues. > >Thiago Tavares Nunes de Oliveira (Brazil). Head of SaferNet Brazil: >cybercrime and privacy issues. > >(Security is difficult, I think we need someone who can speak to >civil society issues around privacy and rights, but also be able to >respond well on security, which I think will be the main bulk of the >session. Carlos Afonso can comment more on the two Brazilian people.) > > >Taking Stock and the way forward > >William Drake, Director, Project on the Information Revolution and >Global Governance Graduate Institute for International Studies >Geneva, Switzerland. > > >Emerging Issues > >No definite suggestion. I am trying to find out if Mark >Shuttleworth can attend. South Africa, Internet security >entrepreneur and Ubuntu supporter > > >(Some stakeholders are suggesting "emerging issues" should be a very >forward looking session, young entrepreneurs would be interesting, >futurists etc. Thoughts?) > > >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 vb at bertola.eu Thu Sep 20 10:34:01 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:34:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> Message-ID: <46F284D9.7090103@bertola.eu> jlfullsack ha scritto: > Wolfgang quoted > "Good balance." > > OK Wolfgang, if you mean the geographical one. > We still ignore where all are coming from (organisation, mandates, ...) > and what -on our behalf- they intend to tell the audience in Rio. I'd be on sort of a middle ground here. As I understand it, panelists will not be "telling" something to the audience - they will reply to questions from the moderator and the floor; thus they are being selected for their expertise on the topics of the session, rather than as representatives of a broader group, and expected to provide answers that are not prepared in advance. This said, I think that all panelists (and we still don't know how many of our nominations will be accepted) will welcome suggestions about points that it would be useful to make, coming from fellow civil society participants. A possible exception to this scenario would be the opening ceremony, which has a much more "representative" and formal function - thus we might want to ask whoever is selected for the opening ceremony to share ideas and gather suggestions in advance. -- 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 Thu Sep 20 10:58:00 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:58:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> Message-ID: >Adam and all, >At ISOC-Bulgaria, we are trying to send some new people to the IGF. >While we can't define names today, there are chances, that you may >be able to see some Bulgarians in Rio. > >We have been able to contribute with a workshop on CIR, organized >together with the World bank, GIPI, CDT and others - >http://info.intgovforum.org/yoppy.php?poj=37. >We are also working on bringing some of our members to the Best >Practices Forum (http://intgovforum.org/BPP.php); as some of you may >know, the current President, the current Prime Minister, and the >Minister of ICT (chairman of the State Agency for ICT) are all >members of ISOC. > > >Best, >Veni > >P.S. I think one of the main problems that we are facing, is that at >every event for years now we see the same people. Veni, this is very true. But that you have just said "we are trying to send some new people to the IGF. While we can't define names today..." is a nice example of the problem. Can't select someone as a speaker unless you know they are going. The meeting starts pretty soon (less than 8 weeks?) It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.)" This situation should not have been allowed to happen. Adam > >At 18:28 9/16/2007 +0900, you wrote: >>Here are some ideas for speakers. There's of course an element of >>my personal preference, but I've also been asking a few others for >>suggestions about names for a while. >> >>I've mentioned when I remember if someone was a panelist in Athens. >>But, we should consider: >> >>There will be 5-7 people on panels, it's a 2000 seat room and last >>we heard about attendance the room is likely to be full. An open >>format, whoever is selected is going to have to be expert on a >>broad range of topics related to the theme, and a confident speaker >>able to respond to (potentially) a stream of questions. We have no >>money to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only >>recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good >>chance of being there.) >> >>So we need experts, who will be in Rio, and gender and geographic >>diversity. And the list below is very bad on Gender. There are two >>or three people I know of who would be great to add to the list but >>need to confirm if they will be in Rio or are willing to speak. >> >>Please, let's not suggest a name unless we know they will be in >>Rio, or, at least you have already started to find out. >> >>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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Sep 20 11:14:30 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:14:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F284D9.7090103@bertola.eu> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> <46F284D9.7090103@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 4:34 PM +0200 9/20/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >jlfullsack ha scritto: >>Wolfgang quoted >>"Good balance." >> >>OK Wolfgang, if you mean the geographical one. >>We still ignore where all are coming from (organisation, mandates, >>...) and what -on our behalf- they intend to tell the audience in >>Rio. > >I'd be on sort of a middle ground here. As I understand it, >panelists will not be "telling" something to the audience - they >will reply to questions from the moderator and the floor; thus they >are being selected for their expertise on the topics of the session, >rather than as representatives of a broader group, and expected to >provide answers that are not prepared in advance. This is expected to be the format. But not entirely clear. Idea is for discussion, no presentations or statements (except the opening ceremony.) Of course anyone can send any selected speaker talking points on issues. >This said, I think that all panelists (and we still don't know how >many of our nominations will be accepted) will welcome suggestions >about points that it would be useful to make, coming from fellow >civil society participants. Also, whoever moderates the session will need briefing, anyone can send comments on the theme and related issues to help the moderator. We should come up with a process for this civil society input. >A possible exception to this scenario would be the opening ceremony, >which has a much more "representative" and formal function - thus we >might want to ask whoever is selected for the opening ceremony to >share ideas and gather suggestions in advance. I mentioned a few days ago: At 2:16 AM +0900 9/15/07, Adam Peake wrote: > Last year Natasha Primo used her time split between her own issues >(Gender and ICT) and also addressed key civil society bullet points. >I think this was successful. I think the person should be able to talk about issues important to them as well as cover what we feel key issues for CS broadly. for a transcript of the Athens opening ceremony (I didn't do Natasha justice say the issues she covered were "Gender and ICT", she did much more.) Is this a good model to follow? 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 12:11:30 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:11:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [cracin-discussion] FW: Book Review: Internet Governance Message-ID: <014601c7fba0$e8f3f630$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> I'm pleased to bring the below (and attached) to the attention of this group. While the overall perspective of the review is couched from the context of e-commerce the content is certainly of broader interest for the IGC. MG -----Original Message----- From: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM [mailto:Cordell.Arthur at ic.gc.ca] Sent: September 20, 2007 8:51 AM To: cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: [cracin-discussion] FW: Book Review: Internet Governance _____ Subject: Book Review: Internet Governance Book review (By: Arthur J. Cordell and Prabir K. Neogi, Industry Canada) Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce August 2007, vol. 12, no. 2 http://www.arraydev.com/commerce/JIBC/current.asp Internet Governance: An Introduction Edited by Ravi Kumar Jain Bandamutha 2007 The Icfai University Press, Hyderabad, India. Internet Governance: An Introduction offers a complete guide to the "ins and outs" of Internet governance. Drawing on a range of international authors Internet Governance is best suited for those seeking an overview of the range of issues involved as the Internet becomes increasingly important to business and to society in general, affecting the daily lives of millions of people around the world. Keywords: Internet, governance, trust, confidence, oversight -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cordell_Book%20Review_PDF%20Ready[1].pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 53713 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From vb at bertola.eu Thu Sep 20 13:31:06 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:31:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Adam Peake ha scritto: > It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring anyone, > the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are > going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.)" This > situation should not have been allowed to happen. You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we could, but alas, up to one month ago there was not even an AG... and the funding issue won't go away (unless we start focusing on how to make the IGF better and stronger, which is one of the objectives of our workshop). I think that Rio will suffer from "still growing up" even more than Athens, and possibly IGF 2008 as well - they will still be caught in the power struggles on how to give the IGF a more effective structure that can work in the long term. All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of quarterly meetings to get to a reasonably stable and functioning status. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Sep 20 14:10:52 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <46f2b85e.0e36640a.17a2.ffffcc21@mx.google.com> At 23:58 9/20/2007 +0900, you wrote: >But that you have just said "we are trying to send some new people >to the IGF. While we can't define names today..." is a nice example >of the problem. Can't select someone as a speaker unless you know >they are going. The meeting starts pretty soon (less than 8 weeks?) We can't define the names today, because we have to choose among several people. Veni ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Sep 20 14:18:10 2007 From: veni at veni.com (veni markovski) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:18:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46f2b98c.261d640a.4b38.ffffd60d@mx.google.com> Vittorio, see below At 19:31 9/20/2007 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring >>anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending >>people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of >>being there.)" This situation should not have been allowed to happen. > >You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we could, but alas, up >to one month ago there was not even an AG... and the funding issue >won't go away (unless we start focusing on how to make the IGF >better and stronger, which is one of the objectives of our >workshop). I think that Rio will suffer from "still growing up" even >more than Athens, and possibly IGF 2008 as well - they will still be >caught in the power struggles on how to give the IGF a more >effective structure that can work in the long term. I don't understand why we should be thinking about it. It's the task of the governments to find the funding, if they want to make the IGF adequate to their needs. The Internet community has had (and still has) a number of places to meet and discuss Internet-related policy issues. The fact that the INET was effectively shut down is a good example that even some of these meeting places are obsolete by now. >All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of quarterly meetings to get >to a reasonably stable and functioning status. There are not too many (if any) points to compare ICANN with the IGF. The IGF is not an organization, but a meeting place. The IGF was a result of compromise between governments, and was not created because they wanted to give up the Internet to self-management (including everyone at equal stake) entities, but on the contrary - because they believe some of them are excluded from this management. The IGF is heavily sponsored by governments, ICANN gets no funding, meeting venues, etc. by the government. The IGF participants don't have a say in the structure, form and governance model of the IGF itself, there are no supporting organizations, etc. Many who participate at the ICANN work find the IGF pointless, while the opposite is not quite the case ;) Etc., etc. 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 drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Sep 20 14:17:55 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:17:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Vittorio, On 9/20/07 7:31 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" wrote: > Adam Peake ha scritto: >> It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring anyone, >> the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are >> going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.)" This >> situation should not have been allowed to happen. > > You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we could, but alas, up to > one month ago there was not even an AG... and the funding issue won't go > away (unless we start focusing on how to make the IGF better and > stronger, which is one of the objectives of our workshop). I think that > Rio will suffer from "still growing up" even more than Athens, and > possibly IGF 2008 as well - they will still be caught in the power > struggles on how to give the IGF a more effective structure that can > work in the long term. > > All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of quarterly meetings to get to > a reasonably stable and functioning status. Thanks for the uplifting vision of the road ahead. The IGF's mandate is five years, so maybe by the time we finish we'll be ready to begin :-) BD ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 15:10:56 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:10:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <01d601c7fbb9$f8de0590$6500a8c0@michael78xnoln> Adam, You say below that "this ("no money to bring anyone") should not have been allowed to happen" implying that it is a situation that could have been prevented. Could you elaborate on what steps you see as having been possible (in the past but for the future) that would have led to a different result? MG -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: September 20, 2007 7:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; veni markovski Subject: RE: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? Veni, this is very true. But that you have just said "we are trying to send some new people to the IGF. While we can't define names today..." is a nice example of the problem. Can't select someone as a speaker unless you know they are going. The meeting starts pretty soon (less than 8 weeks?) It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of being there.)" This situation should not have been allowed to happen. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Sep 20 15:33:19 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:33:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <46F2CAFF.6020006@rits.org.br> I am not sure how to interpret Ralf's message. Is he accepting the nomination? I have seen some original work on security issues at least outside of Europe, so there might be other candidates in case he does not want the nomination. An alternative the Brazilian caucus is suggesting is Thiago Tavares (www.safernet.org.br), leading member of the Safernet network, a pioneer in the struggle for children's rights and against child abuse on the Internet in our region. frt rgds --c.a. Ralf Bendrath wrote: > jlfullsack schrieb: >> We still ignore where all are coming from (organisation, mandates, ...) >> and what -on our behalf- they intend to tell the audience in Rio. > I have been nominated for the "security" session, and if I end up there, I > won't be speaking on anyone's behalf, sorry. If this would be so, I would > need a mandate on substance etc. which is not the case. > Everybody who has been involed in the Internet Governance Caucus a bit > longer knows that I have actively participated in the privacy & security > discussions in WSIS from early 2003 on. The caucus positions on privacy > and security are well documented in various submissions and papers, and > mostly, they were drafted by me or my colleagues from the privacy&security > working group. If this is not enough for a minimal level of trust, I am > really sorry. > > I also don't intend to prepare a "speech" or something like that in > advance, as the format of the main sessions will more be like an > interactive roundtable. If anyone has specific points he or she wants to > be raised, this can of course be discusses here or send to me privately. > But if I really raise them will depend on the flow of the discussion on > the panel. The same applies to points I will want to raise myself. > > By the way: I have absolutely no mandate from my university, it is just my > affiliation. Nor do I have a mandate from any other organization. > Actually, this is an interesting case compared to other policy fields - > the role of individuals is much bigger in internet governance policy > processes. > > 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 > > -- 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Sep 20 19:35:16 2007 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:35:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F2CAFF.6020006@rits.org.br> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <46F2CAFF.6020006@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46F303B4.9070404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Carlos Afonso schrieb: > I am not sure how to interpret Ralf's message. Is he accepting the > nomination? I accept the nomination. I was trying to say that I would not see myself representing anyone in a techical sense, and that there is no agreed text I would read or something like that. But of course it would be clear that I am a civil society activist and researcher, and my positions are extremely close to everything agreed among civil society in the WSIS-IGF process since early 2003. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Sep 20 21:02:06 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:02:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F303B4.9070404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <46F2CAFF.6020006@rits.org.br> <46F303B4.9070404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <46F3180E.40907@rits.org.br> Great. frt rgds --c.a. Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Carlos Afonso schrieb: >> I am not sure how to interpret Ralf's message. Is he accepting the >> nomination? > I accept the nomination. > > I was trying to say that I would not see myself representing anyone in a > techical sense, and that there is no agreed text I would read or something > like that. > But of course it would be clear that I am a civil society activist and > researcher, and my positions are extremely close to everything agreed > among civil society in the WSIS-IGF process since early 2003. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 iza at anr.org Thu Sep 20 21:33:08 2007 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:33:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] final final list of nominees on behalf of IGC for IGF In-Reply-To: <46F3180E.40907@rits.org.br> References: <490305.88837.qm@web54108.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA02@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <002801c7fb65$f5f39b00$0a01a8c0@PCbureau> <46F2501B.6000004@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <46F2CAFF.6020006@rits.org.br> <46F303B4.9070404@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <46F3180E.40907@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Thanks Carlos and Ralf, I am prompted to make some comments - I do not have a visible track record on security/privacy policy area as an activists, unlike others. However, I have been working on the study of policy issues around security and privacy for some 3 years, and now working on the emerging issue of digital Identity Management. Some standardization work is ongoing at ITU around NGN and other bodies, OECD also organized a workshop on this last May, and EU is putting considerable resources in the R&D of ID management. US plans to introduce "Real ID" while UK introduced ID card under Passport system. Japanese government is considering the introduction of social security ID card, Korean government is introducing new personal PIN system... So if selected, I may raise these emerging issues and point out that in most cases, privacy and human right considerations are not sufficiently addressed in an open manner. I am also involved in preparing the IPv4 depletion/IPv6 transition workshop for IGF. These are labled as "Internet Core Resources", but they are also kind of digital identifiers, and if implemented in certain ways it will open the door for tracking down the illegal or criminal users - another set of ID managmenet/privacy issues. Finally, there is relatively low level awareness on privacy in most parts of Asia. best, izumi 2007/9/21, Carlos Afonso : > Great. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > Carlos Afonso schrieb: > >> I am not sure how to interpret Ralf's message. Is he accepting the > >> nomination? > > I accept the nomination. > > > > I was trying to say that I would not see myself representing anyone in a > > techical sense, and that there is no agreed text I would read or something > > like that. > > But of course it would be clear that I am a civil society activist and > > researcher, and my positions are extremely close to everything agreed > > among civil society in the WSIS-IGF process since early 2003. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 21 00:01:57 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:01:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 7:31 PM +0200 9/20/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Adam Peake ha scritto: >>It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring >>anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending >>people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of >>being there.)" This situation should not have been allowed to >>happen. > >You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we could, but alas, up >to one month ago there was not even an AG... Exactly, I meant up until a month ago there was not even an advisory group. Nothing to do with the caucus, not blaming you and Parminder for global warming or the mess with speakers :-) My problem is with whoever/whatever caused the delays throughout the year. I've said something about speakers at every consultation this year, this from February: "And when Mr. Geiger was giving the dates of the on the WSIS meeting, it reminded me the meeting in Athens was really prepared in a little over five and a half months and we are now about eight and a half months out from the Rio meeting, and so I know that, Chairman, you said you were going to emphasize that we have to get moving and moving fast. But it really is time now to start approaching speakers to ask them if they can come and speak at that meeting. We can't just ask them to leave a week free at the end of October and early November. We have to be asking specific questions of them -- Can you speak on a topic on a day -- if we want high quality speakers to be joining these panels. And that means getting an agenda ready and drafted as soon as possible. If we want to have workshops that are integrated into the agenda, as many of the people have commented should happen more during the stock-taking session, that seemed to be something that was important to many people, that we had a more coherent mix of workshops into the general agenda, then we have to get the requests for workshops out as soon as possible. So I really do hope that you can emphasize this need for urgency to the secretary-general, because otherwise, we're going to end up in the same situation as Athens. And while that was a successful meeting, we have to make Rio a better meeting." (end quote) Michael, same response: the post-Athens taking stocking identified lack of funds for participation as important to remedy -- number of participants from developing nations was too low. I don't think anything's been done. In no way blame the secretariat for this. Anyway, issues for the next taking stock session, not now. Adam >and the funding issue won't go away (unless we start focusing on how >to make the IGF better and stronger, which is one of the objectives >of our workshop). I think that Rio will suffer from "still growing >up" even more than Athens, and possibly IGF 2008 as well - they will >still be caught in the power struggles on how to give the IGF a more >effective structure that can work in the long term. > >All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of quarterly meetings to get >to a reasonably stable and functioning status. >-- >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 lists at privaterra.info Fri Sep 21 08:06:13 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:06:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Message-ID: Adam: If i'm not mistaken, a 100,000 CDN (which is now = 100,000 USD btw) fund was contributed by government of Canada for participation from developing countries at the IGF. Has there been any details and/or an application process identified as to how some or part of that fund could be accessed by CS speakers? I ask not only as a caucus member, but also as a Canadian Taxpayer... regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 21-Sep-07, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > At 7:31 PM +0200 9/20/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> Adam Peake ha scritto: >>> It is not at all pleasing to write "We have no money to bring >>> anyone, the meeting starts in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending >>> people who are going to be there (or have a very good chance of >>> being there.)" This situation should not have been allowed to >>> happen. >> >> You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we could, but alas, up >> to one month ago there was not even an AG... > > > Exactly, I meant up until a month ago there was not even an > advisory group. Nothing to do with the caucus, not blaming you and > Parminder for global warming or the mess with speakers :-) My > problem is with whoever/whatever caused the delays throughout the > year. I've said something about speakers at every consultation > this year, this from February: > > "And when Mr. Geiger was giving the dates of the on the WSIS > meeting, it > reminded me the meeting in Athens was really prepared in a little over > five and a half months and we are now about eight and a half months > out > from the Rio meeting, and so I know that, Chairman, you said you were > going to emphasize that we have to get moving and moving fast. But it > really is time now to start approaching speakers to ask them if > they can > come and speak at that meeting. We can't just ask them to leave a > week > free at the end of October and early November. We have to be asking > specific questions of them -- Can you speak on a topic on a day -- > if we > want high quality speakers to be joining these panels. > > And that means getting an agenda ready and drafted as soon as > possible. > > If we want to have workshops that are integrated into the agenda, as > many of the people have commented should happen more during the > stock-taking session, that seemed to be something that was > important to > many people, that we had a more coherent mix of workshops into the > general agenda, then we have to get the requests for workshops out as > soon as possible. > > So I really do hope that you can emphasize this need for urgency to > the > secretary-general, because otherwise, we're going to end up in the > same > situation as Athens. And while that was a successful meeting, we have > to make Rio a better meeting." (end quote) > > > Michael, same response: the post-Athens taking stocking identified > lack of funds for participation as important to remedy -- number of > participants from developing nations was too low. I don't think > anything's been done. > > In no way blame the secretariat for this. > > Anyway, issues for the next taking stock session, not now. > > Adam > > > >> and the funding issue won't go away (unless we start focusing on >> how to make the IGF better and stronger, which is one of the >> objectives of our workshop). I think that Rio will suffer from >> "still growing up" even more than Athens, and possibly IGF 2008 as >> well - they will still be caught in the power struggles on how to >> give the IGF a more effective structure that can work in the long >> term. >> >> All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of quarterly meetings to >> get to a reasonably stable and functioning status. >> -- >> vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu >> <-------- >> --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ >> <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Sep 21 08:45:12 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 21:45:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Speakers for IGF - new faces? In-Reply-To: References: <20070914062720.06A26E0433@smtp3.electricembers.net> <46f27c9d.0d1d640a.19d1.ffff9310@mx.google.com> <46F2AE5A.6030601@bertola.eu> Message-ID: At 8:06 AM -0400 9/21/07, Robert Guerra wrote: >Adam: > >If i'm not mistaken, a 100,000 CDN (which is now >= 100,000 USD btw) fund was contributed by >government of Canada for participation from >developing countries at the IGF. > >Has there been any details and/or an application >process identified as to how some or part of >that fund could be accessed by CS speakers? No, there hasn't been any information recently about what's happened to the Canadian donation. I think you should check with Bill Graham. Adam >I ask not only as a caucus member, but also as a Canadian Taxpayer... > > >regards, > >Robert >--- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra >Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > >On 21-Sep-07, at 12:01 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>At 7:31 PM +0200 9/20/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >>>Adam Peake ha scritto: >>>>It is not at all pleasing to write "We have >>>>no money to bring anyone, the meeting starts >>>>in 8 weeks. Suggest only recommending people >>>>who are going to be there (or have a very >>>>good chance of being there.)" This situation >>>>should not have been allowed to happen. >>> >>>You mean we could have started earlier? Yes we >>>could, but alas, up to one month ago there was >>>not even an AG... >> >> >>Exactly, I meant up until a month ago there was >>not even an advisory group. Nothing to do with >>the caucus, not blaming you and Parminder for >>global warming or the mess with speakers :-) >>My problem is with whoever/whatever caused the >>delays throughout the year. I've said >>something about speakers at every consultation >>this year, this from February: >> >>"And when Mr. Geiger was giving the dates of the on the WSIS meeting, it >>reminded me the meeting in Athens was really prepared in a little over >>five and a half months and we are now about eight and a half months out >>from the Rio meeting, and so I know that, Chairman, you said you were >>going to emphasize that we have to get moving and moving fast. But it >>really is time now to start approaching speakers to ask them if they can >>come and speak at that meeting. We can't just ask them to leave a week >>free at the end of October and early November. We have to be asking >>specific questions of them -- Can you speak on a topic on a day -- if we >>want high quality speakers to be joining these panels. >> >>And that means getting an agenda ready and drafted as soon as possible. >> >>If we want to have workshops that are integrated into the agenda, as >>many of the people have commented should happen more during the >>stock-taking session, that seemed to be something that was important to >>many people, that we had a more coherent mix of workshops into the >>general agenda, then we have to get the requests for workshops out as >>soon as possible. >> >>So I really do hope that you can emphasize this need for urgency to the >>secretary-general, because otherwise, we're going to end up in the same >>situation as Athens. And while that was a successful meeting, we have >>to make Rio a better meeting." (end quote) >> >> >>Michael, same response: the post-Athens taking >>stocking identified lack of funds for >>participation as important to remedy -- number >>of participants from developing nations was too >>low. I don't think anything's been done. >> >>In no way blame the secretariat for this. >> >>Anyway, issues for the next taking stock session, not now. >> >>Adam >> >> >>>and the funding issue won't go away (unless we >>>start focusing on how to make the IGF better >>>and stronger, which is one of the objectives >>>of our workshop). I think that Rio will suffer >>>from "still growing up" even more than Athens, >>>and possibly IGF 2008 as well - they will >>>still be caught in the power struggles on how >>>to give the IGF a more effective structure >>>that can work in the long term. >>> >>>All in all, it took ICANN 5 to 10 years of >>>quarterly meetings to get to a reasonably >>>stable and functioning status. >>>-- >>>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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au Fri Sep 21 18:46:05 2007 From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:46:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] A Consociational Bureau for the Internet Governance Forum Message-ID: <46F449AD.1050404@Malcolm.id.au> This is a less academic version of what would have been my presentation at this year's GigaNET, had it been accepted: http://www.circleid.com/posts/79219_consociational_bureau_internet_governance/ -- Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Sep 22 09:38:03 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:08:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Participation in OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 In-Reply-To: <46CB3861.5060901@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20070922133820.0A63CE0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> Dear Jeanette, > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > .... > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! My response to this is at two levels. At one level, I understand that it is important to engage with such important issues at all levels. IT for Change will like to make use of all opportunities to influence any policy that, by legitimacy, or by default, can affect possibilities and processes of development. And polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can't miss the opportunity to engage with these process, with whatever effectiveness. So count us in for any combined CS effort in this matter. At another level, I will like to engage in a discussion about why would you be ready to engage with an exclusive closed group of rich nations meeting 'to formulate guiding principles and policies for the future development of the Internet economy' and be not so enthusiastic about a more legitimate process of 'enhanced cooperation' which is supposed to include all countries and has some chance of CS involvement we well. (Jeanette, if I am not wrong I have heard you say that you have no enthusiasm or expectations from the enhanced cooperation process.) And what about a civil society led process on framing such broad principles for the internet, as we are trying to do through the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' (of which IGP is partner, I invite your greater personal engagement with it as well, and also invite others to become members) . Recently civil society led the process of framing a disability rights convention, why don't we follow their lead, or at least try to present some basis for developing broad principles which can then be used by a more representative process. > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. Why don't 'Civil society groups active in the area of information society related issues' first express our vision of such 'guiding principles' for the development of the Internet at a more representative and multistakeholder UN forum of IGF rather than at the OECD. This can be done through this dynamic coalition on 'framework of principles for the Internet'- and this is an open invitation to everyone to join/work with the 'dynamic coalition on framework of principles for the Internet'. I quote the WGIG report building the justification for the IGF "Existing institutions that address some of these Internet-related public policy issues, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are not generally global in their membership and therefore developing countries lack a forum for discussing Internet-related public policy issues. " > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting. We will very much like to link the work in the IGF done by the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' to the OECD processes. I must repeat that I am for engagement with the OECD, and ready to associate with the process. The other issues I have raised here came to my mind as they seem connected to the basic objective and processes of CS engagements with global internet policy processes to influence them towards 'progressive' directions. The first question I will like to pose at the OECD meeting of course is that why are they - the OECD - not engaging in developing global Internet polices and policy principles at the more legitimate global forums like the IGF and the enhanced cooperation process, and why should the rest of the world just have to get co-opted into global polices made by the OECD which become de facto applicable to all by the sheer economic and political muscle of the OECD countries and the mega-businesses of these countries. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:39 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Civil Society Participation in OECD Ministerial > Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 > > > > Greetings, > > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > > APC and the Internet Governance Project, together > with the 'Public Voice', is working with the OECD > secretariat to increase participation of Civil > Society groups in shaping the agenda of the > Ministerial meeting and in organising a one day > stakeholder pre-event on June 16th 2008. > > This message contains general background > information about the OECD and the 10th > Ministerial meeting, and some of the > opportunities for civil society participation. > > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! > > Jeanette Hofmann, Karen Banks, Milton Mueller > > About The Event > ============= > The OECD, an inter-governmental organisation that > consists of 30 member Countries, will hold a > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy" in Seoul, Korea, on 17-18 June > 2008. www.oecd.org/futureinternet. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting aims to formulate > guiding principles and policies for the future > development of the Internet economy. Recognizing > that the world depends to a growing degree on the > Internet, the goal is to help governments > establish policies responding to new developments > and concerns arising from the changing role of > the Internet in our society and economy. > > The Ministerial meeting will be preceded by a day > of "stakeholder fora" on June 16 2008, to give an > opportunity to civil society and the business > sector to present their viewpoints on the future > development of the Internet economy. More > information on the Ministerial and Stakeholder fora are available online. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. > > About The OECD > ============= > Membership in the OECD includes the majority of > European countries, Canada, the United States, > Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Turkey, Japan and > Korea. The OECD headquarters (the secretariat) is based in Paris. > > The OECD provides a setting where governments can > compare policy experiences, seek answers to > common problems, identify good practice and work > to co-ordinate domestic and international > policies. The OECD engages in policy analysis, > data gathering, monitoring, and forecasting in > many different areas but in particular for > economic, environmental and social issues. In the > fields of digital economy and information > society, the OECD covers many areas that are of > interest to civil society, such as privacy law > enforcement, user-created content, network > neutrality and gender in ICT employment. Reports > of the OECD Committee of Information, Computer > and Communications Policy can be found at (www.oecd.org/sti/ict) > > The OECD has relationships with about 70 > non-member countries and a number of > non-governmental entities such as the Business > and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and the > Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC). There is > as yet no formal link to civil society > organisations, but the OECD is currently > considering its relationship to the > non-governmental sector with a view to greater inclusion. > > > Public Consultation - open until September 14th 2007 > ========================================= > The OECD Online Public Consultation provides an > opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on > the topics and issues to be discussed at the > OECD's Ministerial meeting on the Future of the > Internet Economy. The online consultation is open > until September 14th and can be found here: > > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ > 1,00.html > > Please contact us if you have difficulty > accessing or completing the online version. > > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting > > o Gathering Civil society statements and reports > that deal with future development of the internet > > o Preparation of a Civil Society Declaration > > o Preparation for a one day civil society stakeholder event on June > 16th2008 > > o Information about preparatory events in the run up to the meeting > > o A time-line of the process and important dates > > References > ========= > o The Public Voice has a resource site with > links to useful background documents, a calendar > of related events and a schedule for the Public > Voice monthly > calls:http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/oecdministerial.html > > o About the OECD: > http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html > > o About the 10th Ministerial Meeting: www.oecd.org/futureinternet > > o The OECD Public Online Consultation: > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ > 1,00.html > > o The OECD Organising Committee: www.oecd.org/sti/ict > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Sep 23 10:26:45 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 10:26:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 In-Reply-To: <20070922133820.0A63CE0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> References: <46CB3861.5060901@wzb.eu> <20070922133820.0A63CE0475@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> An interesting set of questions, Parminder. First, let's dispose quickly of the "enhanced cooperation" theme. While I can't speak for Jeanette, I am pretty confident that when she expressed a view that nothing will come of it she is speaking in a factual rather than normative sense. That is, she believes that the governments involved, mainly US and EU, are either unable or unwilling to move forward with the promised cooperation, and thus has no expectations for it. In this, I (disappointedly) concur. Second, it seems to me that your first paragraph, which states that "polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can't miss the opportunity to engage with these process" answers many of the questions in the later paragraphs. Third, you characterize OECD as an exclusive, closed club of rich(er) nations, which it more or less is (it would like to add China, India and Brazil as members, I suspect). But in this case OECD seems to be exploring ways to engage with and open up to civil society. Since civil society is not bound by national territories this is a chance for the type of participants to be broadened significantly. The more important point here is that powerful governments are very good at Forum-shopping (a lot of the trouble with enhanced coop in the IGF is due to that). If our voices are not present in that critical Forum and a consensus around certain principles or ideas forms there, it could undermine work in other arenas. You ask a question about why OECD doesn't try to formulate principles via IGF rather than on its own. I guess you are smart enough to know most of the answer, so this must be a rhetorical question. OECD like all organizations has its own needs for self-promotion, growth, importance and financial sustainability. Its very existence is predicated on the value that a smaller, more homogeneous and focused "club" has for its members, and on exercising leadership. If OECD will not completely come to the Forum the Forum will have to come to it, as the old saying about Mohammed goes. It would seem to me that participation in OECD by civil society would construct a bridge between those two worlds and is indeed the only way to proceed. There are of course serious questions about how much resources CS groups should devote to these things, which are especially salient for low-budget orgs like ours. ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Dear Jeanette, > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > ............ > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! My response to this is at two levels. At one level, I understand that it is important to engage with such important issues at all levels. IT for Change will like to make use of all opportunities to influence any policy that, by legitimacy, or by default, can affect possibilities and processes of development. And polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can't miss the opportunity to engage with these process, with whatever effectiveness. So count us in for any combined CS effort in this matter. At another level, I will like to engage in a discussion about why would you be ready to engage with an exclusive closed group of rich nations meeting 'to formulate guiding principles and policies for the future development of the Internet economy' and be not so enthusiastic about a more legitimate process of 'enhanced cooperation' which is supposed to include all countries and has some chance of CS involvement we well. (Jeanette, if I am not wrong I have heard you say that you have no enthusiasm or expectations from the enhanced cooperation process.) And what about a civil society led process on framing such broad principles for the internet, as we are trying to do through the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' (of which IGP is partner, I invite your greater personal engagement with it as well, and also invite others to become members) . Recently civil society led the process of framing a disability rights convention, why don't we follow their lead, or at least try to present some basis for developing broad principles which can then be used by a more representative process. > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. Why don't 'Civil society groups active in the area of information society related issues' first express our vision of such 'guiding principles' for the development of the Internet at a more representative and multistakeholder UN forum of IGF rather than at the OECD. This can be done through this dynamic coalition on 'framework of principles for the Internet'- and this is an open invitation to everyone to join/work with the 'dynamic coalition on framework of principles for the Internet'. I quote the WGIG report building the justification for the IGF "Existing institutions that address some of these Internet-related public policy issues, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are not generally global in their membership and therefore developing countries lack a forum for discussing Internet-related public policy issues. " > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting. We will very much like to link the work in the IGF done by the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' to the OECD processes. I must repeat that I am for engagement with the OECD, and ready to associate with the process. The other issues I have raised here came to my mind as they seem connected to the basic objective and processes of CS engagements with global internet policy processes to influence them towards 'progressive' directions. The first question I will like to pose at the OECD meeting of course is that why are they - the OECD - not engaging in developing global Internet polices and policy principles at the more legitimate global forums like the IGF and the enhanced cooperation process, and why should the rest of the world just have to get co-opted into global polices made by the OECD which become de facto applicable to all by the sheer economic and political muscle of the OECD countries and the mega-businesses of these countries. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:39 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Civil Society Participation in OECD Ministerial > Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 > > > > Greetings, > > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > > APC and the Internet Governance Project, together > with the 'Public Voice', is working with the OECD > secretariat to increase participation of Civil > Society groups in shaping the agenda of the > Ministerial meeting and in organising a one day > stakeholder pre-event on June 16th 2008. > > This message contains general background > information about the OECD and the 10th > Ministerial meeting, and some of the > opportunities for civil society participation. > > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! > > Jeanette Hofmann, Karen Banks, Milton Mueller > > About The Event > ============= > The OECD, an inter-governmental organisation that > consists of 30 member Countries, will hold a > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy" in Seoul, Korea, on 17-18 June > 2008. www.oecd.org/futureinternet. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting aims to formulate > guiding principles and policies for the future > development of the Internet economy. Recognizing > that the world depends to a growing degree on the > Internet, the goal is to help governments > establish policies responding to new developments > and concerns arising from the changing role of > the Internet in our society and economy. > > The Ministerial meeting will be preceded by a day > of "stakeholder fora" on June 16 2008, to give an > opportunity to civil society and the business > sector to present their viewpoints on the future > development of the Internet economy. More > information on the Ministerial and Stakeholder fora are available online. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. > > About The OECD > ============= > Membership in the OECD includes the majority of > European countries, Canada, the United States, > Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Turkey, Japan and > Korea. The OECD headquarters (the secretariat) is based in Paris. > > The OECD provides a setting where governments can > compare policy experiences, seek answers to > common problems, identify good practice and work > to co-ordinate domestic and international > policies. The OECD engages in policy analysis, > data gathering, monitoring, and forecasting in > many different areas but in particular for > economic, environmental and social issues. In the > fields of digital economy and information > society, the OECD covers many areas that are of > interest to civil society, such as privacy law > enforcement, user-created content, network > neutrality and gender in ICT employment. Reports > of the OECD Committee of Information, Computer > and Communications Policy can be found at (www.oecd.org/sti/ict) > > The OECD has relationships with about 70 > non-member countries and a number of > non-governmental entities such as the Business > and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and the > Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC). There is > as yet no formal link to civil society > organisations, but the OECD is currently > considering its relationship to the > non-governmental sector with a view to greater inclusion. > > > Public Consultation - open until September 14th 2007 > ========================================= > The OECD Online Public Consultation provides an > opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on > the topics and issues to be discussed at the > OECD's Ministerial meeting on the Future of the > Internet Economy. The online consultation is open > until September 14th and can be found here: > > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_ 1_ > 1,00.html > > Please contact us if you have difficulty > accessing or completing the online version. > > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting > > o Gathering Civil society statements and reports > that deal with future development of the internet > > o Preparation of a Civil Society Declaration > > o Preparation for a one day civil society stakeholder event on June > 16th2008 > > o Information about preparatory events in the run up to the meeting > > o A time-line of the process and important dates > > References > ========= > o The Public Voice has a resource site with > links to useful background documents, a calendar > of related events and a schedule for the Public > Voice monthly > calls:http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/oecdministerial.html > > o About the OECD: > http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html > > o About the 10th Ministerial Meeting: www.oecd.org/futureinternet > > o The OECD Public Online Consultation: > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_ 1_ > 1,00.html > > o The OECD Organising Committee: www.oecd.org/sti/ict > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: 9/21/2007 2:02 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From drake at hei.unige.ch Sun Sep 23 10:52:44 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:52:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, Agree with the below, notwithstanding the views expressed at the Meissen meeting that enhanced cooperation is well underway and going swimmingly. On CS involvement in the OECD event, it¹d be helpful if you tripodites could report about how things are evolving and solicit input etc, no? There¹s never any written records from the Public Voice teleconferences, which are held at times that less convenient outside the US (never mind the costs of calling in for an hour), so there¹s a bit of a disconnect. Just a thought... Cheers, Bill On 9/23/07 4:26 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > An interesting set of questions, Parminder. > > First, let's dispose quickly of the "enhanced cooperation" theme. While I > can't speak for Jeanette, I am pretty confident that when she expressed a view > that nothing will come of it she is speaking in a factual rather than > normative sense. That is, she believes that the governments involved, mainly > US and EU, are either unable or unwilling to move forward with the promised > cooperation, and thus has no expectations for it. In this, I (disappointedly) > concur. > > Second, it seems to me that your first paragraph, which states that "polices > made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can¹t miss the > opportunity to engage with these process" answers many of the questions in the > later paragraphs. > > Third, you characterize OECD as an exclusive, closed club of rich(er) nations, > which it more or less is (it would like to add China, India and Brazil as > members, I suspect). But in this case OECD seems to be exploring ways to > engage with and open up to civil society. Since civil society is not bound by > national territories this is a chance for the type of participants to be > broadened significantly. > > The more important point here is that powerful governments are very good at > Forum-shopping (a lot of the trouble with enhanced coop in the IGF is due to > that). If our voices are not present in that critical Forum and a consensus > around certain principles or ideas forms there, it could undermine work in > other arenas. > > You ask a question about why OECD doesn't try to formulate principles via IGF > rather than on its own. I guess you are smart enough to know most of the > answer, so this must be a rhetorical question. OECD like all organizations has > its own needs for self-promotion, growth, importance and financial > sustainability. Its very existence is predicated on the value that a smaller, > more homogeneous and focused "club" has for its members, and on exercising > leadership. If OECD will not completely come to the Forum the Forum will have > to come to it, as the old saying about Mohammed goes. It would seem to me that > participation in OECD by civil society would construct a bridge between those > two worlds and is indeed the only way to proceed. > > There are of course serious questions about how much resources CS groups > should devote to these things, which are especially salient for low-budget > orgs like ours. > > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Dear Jeanette, > >> > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation >> > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th >> > Ministerial Meeting on ³The Future of the >> > Internet Economy², which will take place in >> > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. >> > ŠŠŠŠ > >> > A second message will soon follow, outlining >> > these opportunities in more detail, include some >> > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for >> > civil society engagement with this process, why >> > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. >> > >> > We look forward to working with you on this! > > My response to this is at two levels. At one level, I understand that it is > important to engage with such important issues at all levels. IT for Change > will like to make use of all opportunities to influence any policy that, by > legitimacy, or by default, can affect possibilities and processes of > development. And polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, > and one can¹t miss the opportunity to engage with these process, with whatever > effectiveness. So count us in for any combined CS effort in this matter. > > At another level, I will like to engage in a discussion about why would you be > ready to engage with an exclusive closed group of rich nations meeting Œto > formulate guiding principles and policies for the future development of the > Internet economy¹ and be not so enthusiastic about a more legitimate process > of Œenhanced cooperation¹ which is supposed to include all countries and has > some chance of CS involvement we well. (Jeanette, if I am not wrong I have > heard you say that you have no enthusiasm or expectations from the enhanced > cooperation process.) And what about a civil society led process on framing > such broad principles for the internet, as we are trying to do through the > dynamic coalition of Œframework of principles for the Internet¹ (of which IGP > is partner, I invite your greater personal engagement with it as well, and > also invite others to become members) . Recently civil society led the process > of framing a disability rights convention, why don¹t we follow their lead, or > at least try to present some basis for developing broad principles which can > then be used by a more representative process. > >> > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad >> > international public space to discuss the >> > economic and societal implications of the >> > emerging information economy. Civil society >> > groups active in the area of information society >> > related issues should use this opportunity to >> > network among themselves and collectively express >> > their visions on guiding policy principles for >> > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. > > Why don¹t ŒCivil society groups active in the area of information society > related issues¹ first express our vision of such Œguiding principles¹ for the > development of the Internet at a more representative and multistakeholder UN > forum of IGF rather than at the OECD. This can be done through this dynamic > coalition on Œframework of principles for the Internet¹­ and this is an open > invitation to everyone to join/work with the Œdynamic coalition on framework > of principles for the Internet¹. > > I quote the WGIG report building the justification for the IGF > > ³Existing institutions that address some of these Internet-related public > policy issues, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and > Development (OECD), are not generally global in their membership and therefore > developing countries lack a forum for discussing Internet-related public > policy issues. ³ > > >> > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement >> > ================================== >> > The next message will contain more detailed >> > information about opportunities for Civil Society >> > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: >> > >> > o Linking work in other public policy processes >> > (such as the World Summit on the Information >> > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial >> > meeting. > > We will very much like to link the work in the IGF done by the dynamic > coalition of Œframework of principles for the Internet¹ to the OECD processes. > > I must repeat that I am for engagement with the OECD, and ready to associate > with the process. The other issues I have raised here came to my mind as they > seem connected to the basic objective and processes of CS engagements with > global internet policy processes to influence them towards Œprogressive¹ > directions. > > The first question I will like to pose at the OECD meeting of course is that > why are they ­ the OECD - not engaging in developing global Internet polices > and policy principles at the more legitimate global forums like the IGF and > the enhanced cooperation process, and why should the rest of the world just > have to get co-opted into global polices made by the OECD which become de > facto applicable to all by the sheer economic and political muscle of the OECD > countries and the mega-businesses of these countries. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change, Bangalore > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 > Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 > www.ITforChange.net > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:39 AM >> > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> > Subject: [governance] Civil Society Participation in OECD Ministerial >> > Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 >> > >> > >> > >> > Greetings, >> > >> > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation >> > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th >> > Ministerial Meeting on ³The Future of the >> > Internet Economy², which will take place in >> > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. >> > >> > APC and the Internet Governance Project, together >> > with the 'Public Voice', is working with the OECD >> > secretariat to increase participation of Civil >> > Society groups in shaping the agenda of the >> > Ministerial meeting and in organising a one day >> > stakeholder pre-event on June 16th 2008. >> > >> > This message contains general background >> > information about the OECD and the 10th >> > Ministerial meeting, and some of the >> > opportunities for civil society participation. >> > >> > A second message will soon follow, outlining >> > these opportunities in more detail, include some >> > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for >> > civil society engagement with this process, why >> > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. >> > >> > We look forward to working with you on this! >> > >> > Jeanette Hofmann, Karen Banks, Milton Mueller >> > >> > About The Event >> > ============= >> > The OECD, an inter-governmental organisation that >> > consists of 30 member Countries, will hold a >> > Ministerial Meeting on ³The Future of the >> > Internet Economy² in Seoul, Korea, on 17-18 June >> > 2008. www.oecd.org/futureinternet. >> > >> > The OECD Ministerial Meeting aims to formulate >> > guiding principles and policies for the future >> > development of the Internet economy. Recognizing >> > that the world depends to a growing degree on the >> > Internet, the goal is to help governments >> > establish policies responding to new developments >> > and concerns arising from the changing role of >> > the Internet in our society and economy. >> > >> > The Ministerial meeting will be preceded by a day >> > of ³stakeholder fora² on June 16 2008, to give an >> > opportunity to civil society and the business >> > sector to present their viewpoints on the future >> > development of the Internet economy. More >> > information on the Ministerial and Stakeholder fora are available online. >> > >> > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad >> > international public space to discuss the >> > economic and societal implications of the >> > emerging information economy. Civil society >> > groups active in the area of information society >> > related issues should use this opportunity to >> > network among themselves and collectively express >> > their visions on guiding policy principles for >> > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. >> > >> > About The OECD >> > ============= >> > Membership in the OECD includes the majority of >> > European countries, Canada, the United States, >> > Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Turkey, Japan and >> > Korea. The OECD headquarters (the secretariat) is based in Paris. >> > >> > The OECD provides a setting where governments can >> > compare policy experiences, seek answers to >> > common problems, identify good practice and work >> > to co-ordinate domestic and international >> > policies. The OECD engages in policy analysis, >> > data gathering, monitoring, and forecasting in >> > many different areas but in particular for >> > economic, environmental and social issues. In the >> > fields of digital economy and information >> > society, the OECD covers many areas that are of >> > interest to civil society, such as privacy law >> > enforcement, user-created content, network >> > neutrality and gender in ICT employment. Reports >> > of the OECD Committee of Information, Computer >> > and Communications Policy can be found at (www.oecd.org/sti/ict) >> > >> > The OECD has relationships with about 70 >> > non-member countries and a number of >> > non-governmental entities such as the Business >> > and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and the >> > Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC). There is >> > as yet no formal link to civil society >> > organisations, but the OECD is currently >> > considering its relationship to the >> > non-governmental sector with a view to greater inclusion. >> > >> > >> > Public Consultation ­ open until September 14th 2007 >> > ========================================= >> > The OECD Online Public Consultation provides an >> > opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on >> > the topics and issues to be discussed at the >> > OECD¹s Ministerial meeting on the Future of the >> > Internet Economy. The online consultation is open >> > until September 14th and can be found here: >> > >> > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ >> > 1,00.html >> > >> > Please contact us if you have difficulty >> > accessing or completing the online version. >> > >> > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement >> > ================================== >> > The next message will contain more detailed >> > information about opportunities for Civil Society >> > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: >> > >> > o Linking work in other public policy processes >> > (such as the World Summit on the Information >> > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial >> > meeting >> > >> > o Gathering Civil society statements and reports >> > that deal with future development of the internet >> > >> > o Preparation of a Civil Society Declaration >> > >> > o Preparation for a one day civil society stakeholder event on June >> > 16th2008 >> > >> > o Information about preparatory events in the run up to the meeting >> > >> > o A time-line of the process and important dates >> > >> > References >> > ========= >> > o The Public Voice has a resource site with >> > links to useful background documents, a calendar >> > of related events and a schedule for the Public >> > Voice monthly >> > calls:http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/oecdministerial.html >> > >> > o About the OECD: >> > http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html >> > >> > o About the 10th Ministerial Meeting: www.oecd.org/futureinternet >> > >> > o The OECD Public Online Consultation: >> > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ >> > 1,00.html >> > >> > o The OECD Organising Committee: www.oecd.org/sti/ict >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 24 09:02:46 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:02:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [coord] FW: Materials for Public Voice Call TODAY Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> IGC people: Here are some rough notes of what transpired on the last Public Voice (http://www.thepublicvoice.org/) teleconference call regarding the OECD civil society mobilization. Probably PV will prepare a more detailed synoposis later --MM ==== CS background paper: creation of different "subgroups" which will draft different portions/subjects. Possible themes: Broadband deployment network neutrality and competition intellectual property privacy security access to public information (and open standards) freedom of expression (censorship) - TUAC - Roland Schneider 3 main topics of interest for TUAC Privacy and freedom of speech Consumer protection Social issues - ICT skills, employment, outsourcing - Marc Roternberg Agree with the above, there are various organization participating, with different areas of expertise. Need to focus attention on all these different areas of interest. - Pippa Issues to be dealt with should be grouped in 3-4 main categories. This would also help canalize the different subjects in view of the Forum in 2008. The main categories can be then sessions at the forum. - Manon Ress Suggestion of additional topics -? (didn't get the name) Possible themes: Privacy and security Consumer protection in ecommerce Unfair terms in electronic contracts Network Architecture: (regrouping open standards, neutrality...) Participation: free speech, IPR protection, Also, we should think about adding "Education" - Deborah Hurley table of content for the sourcebook has been sent out last week, comments are welcome - Pippa - Marc Rotenberg Status of oecd work on ID management? - Manon going to add other guidelins on privacy? - Claudia Circulate the outline for the sourcebook to the ICCP people, to see if there are other documents/papers/recommendations that can be added [[Circulate to the reference group the policy framework]] Deborah October 18 next conference call ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 24 11:47:09 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:47:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] space on Nov.11th Message-ID: <46F7DBFD.7010504@rits.org.br> Dear people, As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would be used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on access. Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only with registration and UN badge. --c.a. -- Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rits - Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor *************************************************************** Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: www.sacix.org.br www.rits.org.br www.coletivodigital.org.br *************************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Mon Sep 24 12:32:55 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:32:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <46F7DBFD.7010504@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with GigaNet by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), and in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet was over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? Confused, Bill On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > Dear people, > > As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people > room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. > > The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would be > used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American > and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. > > The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In > this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. > > *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity > to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. > > The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on access. > > Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN > jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only > with registration and UN badge. > > --c.a. *********************************************************** William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Sep 24 15:21:41 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:21:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] OECD discussions In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> IGC people: Here are some rough notes of what transpired on the last Public Voice (http://www.thepublicvoice.org/) teleconference call regarding the OECD civil society mobilization. Probably PV will prepare a more detailed synoposis later --MM I sent this much earlier today but it hasn't appeared on the Governance list, so I am sending it again. ==== CS background paper: creation of different "subgroups" which will draft different portions/subjects. Possible themes: Broadband deployment network neutrality and competition intellectual property privacy security access to public information (and open standards) freedom of expression (censorship) - TUAC - Roland Schneider 3 main topics of interest for TUAC Privacy and freedom of speech Consumer protection Social issues - ICT skills, employment, outsourcing - Marc Roternberg Agree with the above, there are various organization participating, with different areas of expertise. Need to focus attention on all these different areas of interest. - Pippa Issues to be dealt with should be grouped in 3-4 main categories. This would also help canalize the different subjects in view of the Forum in 2008. The main categories can be then sessions at the forum. - Manon Ress Suggestion of additional topics -? (didn't get the name) Possible themes: Privacy and security Consumer protection in ecommerce Unfair terms in electronic contracts Network Architecture: (regrouping open standards, neutrality...) Participation: free speech, IPR protection, Also, we should think about adding "Education" - Deborah Hurley table of content for the sourcebook has been sent out last week, comments are welcome - Pippa - Marc Rotenberg Status of oecd work on ID management? - Manon going to add other guidelins on privacy? - Claudia Circulate the outline for the sourcebook to the ICCP people, to see if there are other documents/papers/recommendations that can be added [[Circulate to the reference group the policy framework]] Deborah October 18 next conference call ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 24 18:30:30 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:30:30 -0300 Subject: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F83A86.6010501@rits.org.br> Hi Bill and all, No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is a room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in the morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole afternoon. Up to the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no longer be needed. Parminder? []s frts --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with GigaNet > by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), and > in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet was > over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the > latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a > manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? > > Confused, > > Bill > > On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > >> Dear people, >> >> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people >> room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. >> >> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would be >> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American >> and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. >> >> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In >> this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. >> >> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity >> to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. >> >> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on access. >> >> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN >> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only >> with registration and UN badge. >> >> --c.a. > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > Director, Project on the Information > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > Graduate Institute for International Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > > > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 25 01:17:59 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:47:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <46F83A86.6010501@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Carlos/ Bill Yes, we need to meet as IGC before IGF starts - for exchanging notes on IGF participation and strategies, and also because IGC as mostly a virtual group should have this annual meeting which is best done at the IGF meetings. The issue is of the timing. Giganet will have many IGC members participating in it. So we have to figure out how late in the afternoon/ evening we can meet. Bill, I know you have told me this before, but when does giganet end. 5 PM? Those who are going to be at rio can give their views when it is best to schedule the meeting on the 11th late afternoon/ evening. I think there are two choices 1) to begin the meeting immediately after giganet - ie is 5 Pm I think, and we can go upto 730 or so. 2) to begin it at 4 PM and then giganet participants join in. The choice will depend on the numbers at giganet, and those not at giganet. To me, immediately post giganet looks fine. And we can extract an assurance from giganet that they will close right on time, keeping in mind the IGC `meeting. Carlos, thanks for booking the room, we will in any case need it. So, pl keep the booking on. 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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:01 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > Hi Bill and all, > > No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is a > room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in the > morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole afternoon. Up to > the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. > > Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no > longer be needed. Parminder? > > []s frts > > --c.a. > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > > > Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with > GigaNet > > by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), > and > > in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet > was > > over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the > > latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a > > manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? > > > > Confused, > > > > Bill > > > > On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > > > >> Dear people, > >> > >> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people > >> room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. > >> > >> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would > be > >> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American > >> and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. > >> > >> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In > >> this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. > >> > >> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity > >> to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. > >> > >> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on > access. > >> > >> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN > >> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only > >> with registration and UN badge. > >> > >> --c.a. > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 25 02:23:36 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:53:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D7E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20070925062347.B4D43A6C19@smtp2.electricembers.net> Thanks for this reply, Milton. I completely agree with the imperative for engagement, and we will see if IT for Change can spare bandwidth/ resources to engage as well. My email was mainly addressed to those in civil society, and in the IGC, who may not be so enthusiastic about 'evolving broad public policy principles for the Internet' in a CS-led way within the IGF but willing to engage with OECD in exactly the same exercise. I know you are not one of those, and have been active in sharpening the policy discourse at the IGF, as well participating in an exercise to develop real process and substantive possibilities for global Internet polices. The very mention of 'framework convention' and such terms attract such a hostile reaction among many that we need to interrogate the reasons for this situation, more deeply. I know that the possibility of authoritative governments dictating global internet polices is the main fear in the minds of most civil society members and groups in giving such a reaction to any structured process for global Internet polices. And this danger being (relatively) less present in OECD circles probably gives them more confidence. In this matter I have two principal arguments (1) Authoritarian governments already know enough, and are increasingly capable enough, to do what they want to in order to control their national digital spaces, which is what they most care to control. I don't see what much more they can get out of international policy agreements, though I know they are aiming for some benefits, like in cross-border 'security' related agreements and arrangements. However, when countries sit down for international negotiations there is always the possibilities that progressive values - a la existing human rights agreements - even if at some low common denominator, get agreed to. Even if such outcomes look difficult at present, it is important to keep some clear global public policy spaces open and engaged in these directions, for information society is a fast evolving area, of which no one has very clear understanding, except for the gut feeling that it is a very very powerful phenomenon altering our realties in far more structural ways than we can understand at present. (2) Authoritarian governments are only one danger, and at the altar of fighting this danger, we can not sacrifice all considerations regarding the economic (also social and political) imperialism that some governments in collaboration with big-business are strengthening through the use of new ICT infrastructures, and other infra and supra structures build over this infrastructure, which are the unique resources, and infrastructures, and 'playing-fields' of the information society. And in making our choices which fights are more important, and if both are important, which mix of response and what trade-offs are to be made, is an issue of political determination, in which, sadly, North based civil society and South-based civil society often takes different positions. It we are really serious about using the strength and legitimacy of a 'global civil society' in all these policy arenas, it is important and that we give greater attention and devote more energy to seeking to evolve common understanding and there from, common agendas and strategies. And I think it is possible. It is principally with this objective in mind I wrote the earlier email. 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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 7:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space Subject: [governance] OECD Ministerial Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 An interesting set of questions, Parminder. First, let's dispose quickly of the "enhanced cooperation" theme. While I can't speak for Jeanette, I am pretty confident that when she expressed a view that nothing will come of it she is speaking in a factual rather than normative sense. That is, she believes that the governments involved, mainly US and EU, are either unable or unwilling to move forward with the promised cooperation, and thus has no expectations for it. In this, I (disappointedly) concur. Second, it seems to me that your first paragraph, which states that "polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can't miss the opportunity to engage with these process" answers many of the questions in the later paragraphs. Third, you characterize OECD as an exclusive, closed club of rich(er) nations, which it more or less is (it would like to add China, India and Brazil as members, I suspect). But in this case OECD seems to be exploring ways to engage with and open up to civil society. Since civil society is not bound by national territories this is a chance for the type of participants to be broadened significantly. The more important point here is that powerful governments are very good at Forum-shopping (a lot of the trouble with enhanced coop in the IGF is due to that). If our voices are not present in that critical Forum and a consensus around certain principles or ideas forms there, it could undermine work in other arenas. You ask a question about why OECD doesn't try to formulate principles via IGF rather than on its own. I guess you are smart enough to know most of the answer, so this must be a rhetorical question. OECD like all organizations has its own needs for self-promotion, growth, importance and financial sustainability. Its very existence is predicated on the value that a smaller, more homogeneous and focused "club" has for its members, and on exercising leadership. If OECD will not completely come to the Forum the Forum will have to come to it, as the old saying about Mohammed goes. It would seem to me that participation in OECD by civil society would construct a bridge between those two worlds and is indeed the only way to proceed. There are of course serious questions about how much resources CS groups should devote to these things, which are especially salient for low-budget orgs like ours. _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Dear Jeanette, > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > .... > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! My response to this is at two levels. At one level, I understand that it is important to engage with such important issues at all levels. IT for Change will like to make use of all opportunities to influence any policy that, by legitimacy, or by default, can affect possibilities and processes of development. And polices made by OECD often become de facto global polices, and one can't miss the opportunity to engage with these process, with whatever effectiveness. So count us in for any combined CS effort in this matter. At another level, I will like to engage in a discussion about why would you be ready to engage with an exclusive closed group of rich nations meeting 'to formulate guiding principles and policies for the future development of the Internet economy' and be not so enthusiastic about a more legitimate process of 'enhanced cooperation' which is supposed to include all countries and has some chance of CS involvement we well. (Jeanette, if I am not wrong I have heard you say that you have no enthusiasm or expectations from the enhanced cooperation process.) And what about a civil society led process on framing such broad principles for the internet, as we are trying to do through the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' (of which IGP is partner, I invite your greater personal engagement with it as well, and also invite others to become members) . Recently civil society led the process of framing a disability rights convention, why don't we follow their lead, or at least try to present some basis for developing broad principles which can then be used by a more representative process. > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. Why don't 'Civil society groups active in the area of information society related issues' first express our vision of such 'guiding principles' for the development of the Internet at a more representative and multistakeholder UN forum of IGF rather than at the OECD. This can be done through this dynamic coalition on 'framework of principles for the Internet'- and this is an open invitation to everyone to join/work with the 'dynamic coalition on framework of principles for the Internet'. I quote the WGIG report building the justification for the IGF "Existing institutions that address some of these Internet-related public policy issues, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), are not generally global in their membership and therefore developing countries lack a forum for discussing Internet-related public policy issues. " > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting. We will very much like to link the work in the IGF done by the dynamic coalition of 'framework of principles for the Internet' to the OECD processes. I must repeat that I am for engagement with the OECD, and ready to associate with the process. The other issues I have raised here came to my mind as they seem connected to the basic objective and processes of CS engagements with global internet policy processes to influence them towards 'progressive' directions. The first question I will like to pose at the OECD meeting of course is that why are they - the OECD - not engaging in developing global Internet polices and policy principles at the more legitimate global forums like the IGF and the enhanced cooperation process, and why should the rest of the world just have to get co-opted into global polices made by the OECD which become de facto applicable to all by the sheer economic and political muscle of the OECD countries and the mega-businesses of these countries. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:39 AM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Civil Society Participation in OECD Ministerial > Meeting, Seoul, June 17-18 2008 > > > > Greetings, > > The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development) is currently preparing its 10th > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy", which will take place in > Seoul, South Korea, June 17-18 2008. > > APC and the Internet Governance Project, together > with the 'Public Voice', is working with the OECD > secretariat to increase participation of Civil > Society groups in shaping the agenda of the > Ministerial meeting and in organising a one day > stakeholder pre-event on June 16th 2008. > > This message contains general background > information about the OECD and the 10th > Ministerial meeting, and some of the > opportunities for civil society participation. > > A second message will soon follow, outlining > these opportunities in more detail, include some > of our preliminary thinking about priorities for > civil society engagement with this process, why > we think you should get involved and how you can get involved. > > We look forward to working with you on this! > > Jeanette Hofmann, Karen Banks, Milton Mueller > > About The Event > ============= > The OECD, an inter-governmental organisation that > consists of 30 member Countries, will hold a > Ministerial Meeting on "The Future of the > Internet Economy" in Seoul, Korea, on 17-18 June > 2008. www.oecd.org/futureinternet. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting aims to formulate > guiding principles and policies for the future > development of the Internet economy. Recognizing > that the world depends to a growing degree on the > Internet, the goal is to help governments > establish policies responding to new developments > and concerns arising from the changing role of > the Internet in our society and economy. > > The Ministerial meeting will be preceded by a day > of "stakeholder fora" on June 16 2008, to give an > opportunity to civil society and the business > sector to present their viewpoints on the future > development of the Internet economy. More > information on the Ministerial and Stakeholder fora are available online. > > The OECD Ministerial Meeting offers a broad > international public space to discuss the > economic and societal implications of the > emerging information economy. Civil society > groups active in the area of information society > related issues should use this opportunity to > network among themselves and collectively express > their visions on guiding policy principles for > the development of the Future of the Internet economy. > > About The OECD > ============= > Membership in the OECD includes the majority of > European countries, Canada, the United States, > Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Turkey, Japan and > Korea. The OECD headquarters (the secretariat) is based in Paris. > > The OECD provides a setting where governments can > compare policy experiences, seek answers to > common problems, identify good practice and work > to co-ordinate domestic and international > policies. The OECD engages in policy analysis, > data gathering, monitoring, and forecasting in > many different areas but in particular for > economic, environmental and social issues. In the > fields of digital economy and information > society, the OECD covers many areas that are of > interest to civil society, such as privacy law > enforcement, user-created content, network > neutrality and gender in ICT employment. Reports > of the OECD Committee of Information, Computer > and Communications Policy can be found at (www.oecd.org/sti/ict) > > The OECD has relationships with about 70 > non-member countries and a number of > non-governmental entities such as the Business > and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and the > Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC). There is > as yet no formal link to civil society > organisations, but the OECD is currently > considering its relationship to the > non-governmental sector with a view to greater inclusion. > > > Public Consultation - open until September 14th 2007 > ========================================= > The OECD Online Public Consultation provides an > opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on > the topics and issues to be discussed at the > OECD's Ministerial meeting on the Future of the > Internet Economy. The online consultation is open > until September 14th and can be found here: > > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ > 1,00.html > > Please contact us if you have difficulty > accessing or completing the online version. > > Opportunities for Civil Society Engagement > ================================== > The next message will contain more detailed > information about opportunities for Civil Society > participation in the 10th Ministerial process including: > > o Linking work in other public policy processes > (such as the World Summit on the Information > Society and The Internet Governance Forum) with the OECD Ministerial > meeting > > o Gathering Civil society statements and reports > that deal with future development of the internet > > o Preparation of a Civil Society Declaration > > o Preparation for a one day civil society stakeholder event on June > 16th2008 > > o Information about preparatory events in the run up to the meeting > > o A time-line of the process and important dates > > References > ========= > o The Public Voice has a resource site with > links to useful background documents, a calendar > of related events and a schedule for the Public > Voice monthly > calls:http://www.thepublicvoice.org/events/oecdministerial.html > > o About the OECD: > http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html > > o About the 10th Ministerial Meeting: www.oecd.org/futureinternet > > o The OECD Public Online Consultation: > http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3343,en_21571361_38415463_38985417_1_1_1_ > 1,00.html > > o The OECD Organising Committee: www.oecd.org/sti/ict > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.487 / Virus Database: 269.13.28/1021 - Release Date: 9/21/2007 2:02 PM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 25 03:27:13 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:27:13 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th References: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> We should do this just after GIGANET, that is 5.00 p.m. Or did we schedule a GIGANET Business meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. wolfgang ________________________________ Fra: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sendt: ti 25-09-2007 07:17 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'William Drake' Emne: RE: [governance] space on Nov.11th Carlos/ Bill Yes, we need to meet as IGC before IGF starts - for exchanging notes on IGF participation and strategies, and also because IGC as mostly a virtual group should have this annual meeting which is best done at the IGF meetings. The issue is of the timing. Giganet will have many IGC members participating in it. So we have to figure out how late in the afternoon/ evening we can meet. Bill, I know you have told me this before, but when does giganet end. 5 PM? Those who are going to be at rio can give their views when it is best to schedule the meeting on the 11th late afternoon/ evening. I think there are two choices 1) to begin the meeting immediately after giganet - ie is 5 Pm I think, and we can go upto 730 or so. 2) to begin it at 4 PM and then giganet participants join in. The choice will depend on the numbers at giganet, and those not at giganet. To me, immediately post giganet looks fine. And we can extract an assurance from giganet that they will close right on time, keeping in mind the IGC `meeting. Carlos, thanks for booking the room, we will in any case need it. So, pl keep the booking on. 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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:01 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > Hi Bill and all, > > No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is a > room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in the > morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole afternoon. Up to > the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. > > Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no > longer be needed. Parminder? > > []s frts > > --c.a. > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carlos, > > > > Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with > GigaNet > > by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), > and > > in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet > was > > over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the > > latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a > > manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? > > > > Confused, > > > > Bill > > > > On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > > > >> Dear people, > >> > >> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people > >> room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. > >> > >> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would > be > >> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American > >> and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. > >> > >> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In > >> this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. > >> > >> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity > >> to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. > >> > >> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on > access. > >> > >> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN > >> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only > >> with registration and UN badge. > >> > >> --c.a. > > > > *********************************************************** > > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch > > Director, Project on the Information > > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO > > Graduate Institute for International Studies > > Geneva, Switzerland > > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html > > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 25 06:16:29 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:16:29 +0900 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Perhaps use the room in the afternoon (or late afternoon) for some kind of open meeting, IGC meets civil society, briefs on the weeks events, some background etc. Offer time to the new CS working group on Internet governance, any of the regional SC organizations that are there. And when giganet's done, have a caucus meeting? Morning primarily Latin America region. Afternoon international? Adam At 9:27 AM +0200 9/25/07, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >We should do this just after GIGANET, that is >5.00 p.m. Or did we schedule a GIGANET Business >meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. > >wolfgang > >________________________________ > >Fra: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >Sendt: ti 25-09-2007 07:17 >Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'William Drake' >Emne: RE: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > > >Carlos/ Bill > >Yes, we need to meet as IGC before IGF starts - for exchanging notes on IGF >participation and strategies, and also because IGC as mostly a virtual group >should have this annual meeting which is best done at the IGF meetings. > >The issue is of the timing. Giganet will have many IGC members participating >in it. So we have to figure out how late in the afternoon/ evening we can >meet. > >Bill, I know you have told me this before, but when does giganet end. 5 PM? > >Those who are going to be at rio can give their views when it is best to >schedule the meeting on the 11th late afternoon/ evening. > >I think there are two choices > >1) to begin the meeting immediately after giganet - ie is 5 Pm I think, and >we can go upto 730 or so. > >2) to begin it at 4 PM and then giganet participants join in. > >The choice will depend on the numbers at giganet, and those not at giganet. > >To me, immediately post giganet looks fine. And we can extract an assurance >from giganet that they will close right on time, keeping in mind the IGC >`meeting. > >Carlos, thanks for booking the room, we will in any case need it. So, pl >keep the booking on. > >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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:01 AM >> To: William Drake >> Cc: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] space on Nov.11th >> >> Hi Bill and all, >> >> No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is a >> room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in the >> morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole afternoon. Up to >> the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. >> >> Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no >> longer be needed. Parminder? >> >> []s frts >> >> --c.a. >> >> William Drake wrote: >> > Hi Carlos, >> > >> > Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with >> GigaNet >> > by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), >> and >> > in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet >> was >> > over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the >> > latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a >> > manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? >> > >> > Confused, >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: >> > >> >> Dear people, >> >> >> >> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people >> >> room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. >> >> >> >> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would >> be >> >> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American >> >> and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. >> >> >> >> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In >> >> this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. > > >> >> >> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity >> >> to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. >> >> >> >> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on >> access. >> >> >> >> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN >> >> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only >> >> with registration and UN badge. >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> > >> > *********************************************************** >> > William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >> > Director, Project on the Information >> > Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >> > Graduate Institute for International Studies >> > Geneva, Switzerland >> > http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html >> > *********************************************************** >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> >> 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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 25 07:59:59 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:59:59 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi, On 9/25/07 9:27 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > We should do this just after GIGANET, that is 5.00 p.m. Or did we schedule a > GIGANET Business meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. There is a GigaNet business meeting scheduled at 3:45pm which will probably run to 5:30. Milton: I can't remember whether or not you sent the 'short program' to the governance list; if not, now that the line-up is fixed, it'd be helpful. In organizing the program, we assumed that the previous understanding was still in place. Carlos had originally suggested that the RITS/Latin American CS event would be, On 4/18/07 11:35 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > Date and time: November 11, from 14:00 to 20:00 (GIGAnet starts early > morning and will join us around 15:00). I don't seem to have saved the follow-up messages, but my recollection was that Milton had asked whether it couldn't start more like 15:00 to avoid conflicting with more than one GigaNet panel and I thought that was ultimately agreed. Anyway Carlos, it's obviously up to your folks when they want to hold their meeting, but it's a pity that LA CS people will be unable to attend the morning GigaNet session on a Development Agenda for IG, which will feed into the discussions of the Development Agenda workshop of which you/ CGI.br are co-sponsors, and which inter alia will feature two papers by Latin American scholars, one of whom is also the Argentine rep to the GAC. Given the roles of Brazil and Argentina in the WIPO DA process and in raising development concerns with respect to IG, one would have hoped there'd be interest in this (and GigaNet more generally). But if you must do it the morning, oh well, macacos me mordam;-) As for the caucus meeting, if it is held during GigaNet, it will be without a dozen or more of the caucus' most active members over the years. I don't see the advantage of that, so I would again suggest doing it afterwards. A little break in between an all day conference and the caucus meeting would be sensible so people can clear their heads, get a coffee, finish conversations, etc. so I would suggest 6-8pm, followed by a caucus/GigaNet samba school session. Two hours ought to be enough for an opening meeting, no? 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Sep 25 09:18:46 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:18:46 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th Message-ID: Why don't we all show some flexibility and end the giganet biz by 5pm so the IGC meeting can get going then? Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> drake at hei.unige.ch 9/25/2007 7:59 AM >>> Hi, On 9/25/07 9:27 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > We should do this just after GIGANET, that is 5.00 p.m. Or did we schedule a > GIGANET Business meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. There is a GigaNet business meeting scheduled at 3:45pm which will probably run to 5:30. Milton: I can't remember whether or not you sent the 'short program' to the governance list; if not, now that the line-up is fixed, it'd be helpful. In organizing the program, we assumed that the previous understanding was still in place. Carlos had originally suggested that the RITS/Latin American CS event would be, On 4/18/07 11:35 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > Date and time: November 11, from 14:00 to 20:00 (GIGAnet starts early > morning and will join us around 15:00). I don't seem to have saved the follow-up messages, but my recollection was that Milton had asked whether it couldn't start more like 15:00 to avoid conflicting with more than one GigaNet panel and I thought that was ultimately agreed. Anyway Carlos, it's obviously up to your folks when they want to hold their meeting, but it's a pity that LA CS people will be unable to attend the morning GigaNet session on a Development Agenda for IG, which will feed into the discussions of the Development Agenda workshop of which you/ CGI.br are co-sponsors, and which inter alia will feature two papers by Latin American scholars, one of whom is also the Argentine rep to the GAC. Given the roles of Brazil and Argentina in the WIPO DA process and in raising development concerns with respect to IG, one would have hoped there'd be interest in this (and GigaNet more generally). But if you must do it the morning, oh well, macacos me mordam;-) As for the caucus meeting, if it is held during GigaNet, it will be without a dozen or more of the caucus' most active members over the years. I don't see the advantage of that, so I would again suggest doing it afterwards. A little break in between an all day conference and the caucus meeting would be sensible so people can clear their heads, get a coffee, finish conversations, etc. so I would suggest 6-8pm, followed by a caucus/GigaNet samba school session. Two hours ought to be enough for an opening meeting, no? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 25 09:46:55 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:46:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <20070925051806.8728824001E9@mx.rits.org.br> References: <20070925051806.8728824001E9@mx.rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46F9114F.5000705@rits.org.br> Just note that the room is for 200+ people. Do we need something this big just for IGC -- unless we are planning an open meeting? --c.a. Parminder wrote: > Carlos/ Bill > > Yes, we need to meet as IGC before IGF starts - for exchanging notes on IGF > participation and strategies, and also because IGC as mostly a virtual group > should have this annual meeting which is best done at the IGF meetings. > > The issue is of the timing. Giganet will have many IGC members participating > in it. So we have to figure out how late in the afternoon/ evening we can > meet. > > Bill, I know you have told me this before, but when does giganet end. 5 PM? > > Those who are going to be at rio can give their views when it is best to > schedule the meeting on the 11th late afternoon/ evening. > > I think there are two choices > > 1) to begin the meeting immediately after giganet - ie is 5 Pm I think, and > we can go upto 730 or so. > > 2) to begin it at 4 PM and then giganet participants join in. > > The choice will depend on the numbers at giganet, and those not at giganet. > > To me, immediately post giganet looks fine. And we can extract an assurance > from giganet that they will close right on time, keeping in mind the IGC > `meeting. > > Carlos, thanks for booking the room, we will in any case need it. So, pl > keep the booking on. > > 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: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:01 AM >> To: William Drake >> Cc: Governance >> Subject: Re: [governance] space on Nov.11th >> >> Hi Bill and all, >> >> No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is a >> room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in the >> morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole afternoon. Up to >> the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. >> >> Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no >> longer be needed. Parminder? >> >> []s frts >> >> --c.a. >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Carlos, >>> >>> Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict with >> GigaNet >>> by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd thought), >> and >>> in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after GigaNet >> was >>> over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus for the >>> latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing the plan in a >>> manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? >>> >>> Confused, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: >>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a 200-people >>>> room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the IGF venue. >>>> >>>> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th would >> be >>>> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin American >>>> and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. >>>> >>>> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to use. In >>>> this way we would reduce the time conflict with the giganet meeting. >>>> >>>> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good opportunity >>>> to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself starts. >>>> >>>> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum on >> access. >>>> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN >>>> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the venue only >>>> with registration and UN badge. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch >>> Director, Project on the Information >>> Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO >>> Graduate Institute for International Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> 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 > > > > -- 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 Tue Sep 25 09:52:40 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:52:40 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <46F912A8.7010406@rits.org.br> An alternative, since this is being pushed into the night :), is that we can reopen the discussion with the Brazilian caucus and see if we have use for the room in the afternoon until the academic community frees itself from Giganet -- which seems 18:00 now? Milton? Another possibility is the use by, say, an open, informative forum by the DCs, but we have got zero response from DCs regarding this so far... I hope the Giganet (soon to become Teranet and then Exanet :)) people understand the only reason we are trying to do this on the 11th is that most people will be arriving between the 10th and the 11th, not earlier, and the only day available would be the 11th. --c.a. Kleinwächter wrote: > We should do this just after GIGANET, that is 5.00 p.m. Or did we > schedule a GIGANET Business meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sendt: ti > 25-09-2007 07:17 Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Carlos Afonso'; > 'William Drake' Emne: RE: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > > > Carlos/ Bill > > Yes, we need to meet as IGC before IGF starts - for exchanging notes > on IGF participation and strategies, and also because IGC as mostly a > virtual group should have this annual meeting which is best done at > the IGF meetings. > > The issue is of the timing. Giganet will have many IGC members > participating in it. So we have to figure out how late in the > afternoon/ evening we can meet. > > Bill, I know you have told me this before, but when does giganet end. > 5 PM? > > Those who are going to be at rio can give their views when it is best > to schedule the meeting on the 11th late afternoon/ evening. > > I think there are two choices > > 1) to begin the meeting immediately after giganet - ie is 5 Pm I > think, and we can go upto 730 or so. > > 2) to begin it at 4 PM and then giganet participants join in. > > The choice will depend on the numbers at giganet, and those not at > giganet. > > To me, immediately post giganet looks fine. And we can extract an > assurance from giganet that they will close right on time, keeping in > mind the IGC `meeting. > > Carlos, thanks for booking the room, we will in any case need it. So, > pl keep the booking on. > > 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: Carlos Afonso >> [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 4:01 AM >> To: William Drake Cc: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] space on >> Nov.11th >> >> Hi Bill and all, >> >> No need to change plans. What we did was just to make sure there is >> a room available. We will do the Latin American/Caribbean event in >> the morning anyway, and the room is available for the whole >> afternoon. Up to the caucus to decide how to use it, if at all. >> >> Otherwise, I can just let the organizers know that the room will no >> longer be needed. Parminder? >> >> []s frts >> >> --c.a. >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Carlos, >>> >>> Last I heard, a) we were trying to minimize scheduling conflict >>> with >> GigaNet >>> by you doing the local thing in the afternoon (after 3pm I'd >>> thought), >> and >>> in consequence, b) we were going to have a caucus meeting after >>> GigaNet >> was >>> over, in the same room. Parminder may have already asked Markus >>> for the latter space, not sure. So why would we now be changing >>> the plan in a manner that cannot work for a bunch of us? >>> >>> Confused, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On 9/24/07 5:47 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: >>> >>>> Dear people, >>>> >>>> As previously mentioned, the local organizers have secured a >>>> 200-people room for civil society's meetings on the 11th at the >>>> IGF venue. >>>> >>>> The Brazilian CS IG caucus is proposing the morning of the 11th >>>> would >> be >>>> used for an "information synchronization" session among Latin >>>> American and Caribbean reps present coming to the IGF. >>>> >>>> The afternoon would be open for the international IG caucus to >>>> use. In this way we would reduce the time conflict with the >>>> giganet meeting. >>>> >>>> *So, let us discuss how to better use this space* -- a good >>>> opportunity to "fine-tune" arguments before the IGF itself >>>> starts. >>>> >>>> The room will be used on the 10th by APC to lead an open forum >>>> on >> access. >>>> Please note that on the 10th the venue will still be out of UN >>>> jurisdiction, but from Nov.11th on everybody will enter the >>>> venue only with registration and UN badge. >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake drake at hei.unige.ch Director, Project on the >>> Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate >>> Institute for International Studies Geneva, Switzerland >>> http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 25 09:56:57 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:56:57 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F913A9.9050602@rits.org.br> There is nothing showing up in the governance list about what Giganet is doing. It would be interesting at least to know what themes are being discussed, a glimpse on the agenda and so on. Are academic observers allowed? Will there be access to the papers by generic mortals afterwards? Is it being held in the venue or elsewhere? etc --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/25/07 9:27 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > >> We should do this just after GIGANET, that is 5.00 p.m. Or did we schedule a >> GIGANET Business meeting? Than we could start 6.00 p.m. > > There is a GigaNet business meeting scheduled at 3:45pm which will probably > run to 5:30. > > Milton: I can't remember whether or not you sent the 'short program' to the > governance list; if not, now that the line-up is fixed, it'd be helpful. > > In organizing the program, we assumed that the previous understanding was > still in place. Carlos had originally suggested that the RITS/Latin > American CS event would be, > > On 4/18/07 11:35 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > >> Date and time: November 11, from 14:00 to 20:00 (GIGAnet starts early >> morning and will join us around 15:00). > > I don't seem to have saved the follow-up messages, but my recollection was > that Milton had asked whether it couldn't start more like 15:00 to avoid > conflicting with more than one GigaNet panel and I thought that was > ultimately agreed. > > Anyway Carlos, it's obviously up to your folks when they want to hold their > meeting, but it's a pity that LA CS people will be unable to attend the > morning GigaNet session on a Development Agenda for IG, which will feed into > the discussions of the Development Agenda workshop of which you/ CGI.br are > co-sponsors, and which inter alia will feature two papers by Latin American > scholars, one of whom is also the Argentine rep to the GAC. Given the roles > of Brazil and Argentina in the WIPO DA process and in raising development > concerns with respect to IG, one would have hoped there'd be interest in > this (and GigaNet more generally). But if you must do it the morning, oh > well, macacos me mordam;-) > > As for the caucus meeting, if it is held during GigaNet, it will be without > a dozen or more of the caucus' most active members over the years. I don't > see the advantage of that, so I would again suggest doing it afterwards. A > little break in between an all day conference and the caucus meeting would > be sensible so people can clear their heads, get a coffee, finish > conversations, etc. so I would suggest 6-8pm, followed by a caucus/GigaNet > samba school session. Two hours ought to be enough for an opening meeting, > no? > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > -- 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 Tue Sep 25 10:26:12 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:26:12 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Bill: The "schedule" for GigaNet is attached. 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: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch] >Milton: I can't remember whether or not you sent >the 'short program' to the governance list; if >not, now that the line-up is fixed, it'd be helpful. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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: schedule-giganet-Rio07.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 39111 bytes Desc: schedule-giganet-Rio07.pdf URL: From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 25 10:32:02 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:32:02 -0400 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <46F912A8.7010406@rits.org.br> References: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46F912A8.7010406@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] >An alternative, since this is being pushed into the night :), is that >can reopen the discussion with the Brazilian caucus and see if we have >use for the room in the afternoon until the academic community frees >itself from Giganet -- which seems 18:00 now? Milton? I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. Seiiti will be moderating the third panel, which starts at 2:00 and goes until 3:15 or so. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 25 10:38:24 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:38:24 -0300 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <20070925051750.E4B9FE1A2C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <46F912A8.7010406@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46F91D60.10705@rits.org.br> Fine. --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > >> An alternative, since this is being pushed into the night :), is that >> can reopen the discussion with the Brazilian caucus and see if we have >> use for the room in the afternoon until the academic community frees >> itself from Giganet -- which seems 18:00 now? Milton? > > I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by > 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 > minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. > > Seiiti will be moderating the third panel, which starts at 2:00 and goes > until 3:15 or so. > > > -- 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 Tue Sep 25 10:41:37 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:41:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] GigaNet themes In-Reply-To: <46F913A9.9050602@rits.org.br> References: <46F913A9.9050602@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:57 AM To: William Drake Cc: Governance; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th >There is nothing showing up in the governance list about >what Giganet is doing. It would be interesting at least >to know what themes are being discussed, a glimpse on >the agenda and so on. Are academic observers allowed? >Will there be access to the papers by generic mortals >afterwards? Carlos, you are anything but generic (although I hear that during your youth you came close to achieving status as a generic latin american urban guerilla). GigaNet is an open conference. We offer academic papers, and papers by academics, but look forward to inflicting them on as many nonacademics as possible. We will inundate you with marketing materials like everyone else soon enough. The panels will be held in the conference venue. Here are the themes: Session 1: A Development Agenda for Internet Governance In recent years developing countries, civil society organizations, and concerned academics have promoted broad "development agendas" for reform of the international regimes and organizations governing trade, debt, and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no parallel initiative has taken shape. These papers analyze the linkages between existing global Internet governance mechanisms and development; the possible need for new mechanisms; and the potential foundations of a holistic development agenda. Session 2: The Changing Institutionalization of Internet Governance The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) raised the profile and changed the global policy discourse of Internet governance. The creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was the most visible result, but there was also a willingness of more governments to participate in ICANN, increased diversity of players entering Internet governance processes as stakeholders, and wider discussion Internet governance mechanisms and decision making. These papers explore the dynamics of the changing institutionalization process. Session 3: Critical Policy Issues in Internet Governance Governance of the Internet is also defined by the way public policy makers respond to specific issues and problems, such as identity and security, or net neutrality. Each of these issue-domains involves its own distinctive set of policy conflicts, stakeholders, technologies and institutional arrangements. These papers examine how global governance arrangements are being defined around specific Internet policy issues. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Sep 25 11:39:03 2007 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:39:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Sep 25 11:42:50 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:12:50 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20070925154243.D612EA6CE6@smtp2.electricembers.net> > I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by > 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 > minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. That will be great. So we can commence IGC meeting at 530 sharp to go till 730 - 8. As to whether it will be a closed meeting or open, and whether we need a 200 plus room - I am inclined to see it as an annual IGC meeting which will discuss issues and strategies but also having an outreach component. We will very much like both those who will be attending giganet as well as LAC/ Caribbean CS community to attend the IGC meeting. For the benefit of these non-members/outsiders we can make a brief presentation about the IGF, and they can witness the deliberations, and we can invite all those interested to join the IGC as well. We can divide time between brief outreach presentation, followed with a short interaction with non-members (total of 1/2 hour) and then moving on to deliberation between existing members (1 1/2 to 2 hours), which others can witness as observers. So, though it will be no where close to 200, lets retain the big room. 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: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:02 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso; Wolfgang > Cc: Parminder; William Drake > Subject: RE: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > > >An alternative, since this is being pushed into the night :), is that > >can reopen the discussion with the Brazilian caucus and see if we have > >use for the room in the afternoon until the academic community frees > >itself from Giganet -- which seems 18:00 now? Milton? > > I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by > 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 > minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. > > Seiiti will be moderating the third panel, which starts at 2:00 and goes > until 3:15 or so. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From lists at privaterra.info Tue Sep 25 12:03:22 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:03:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> Wolfgang: To be honest, i'm a bit pessamistic about the bill of rights proposal. It was presented at WSIS/Tunis, at the IGF last year - but, not really caught on outside of a small IGF community. I'm a couple of dozen of human rights and legal lists, and there is no mention of the proposal. I really hate to say this - but, from my perspective it just looks like an Italian project with little or no support from the international legal and/or human rights community. That being said, I hope i'm wrong and the initiative has grown since last igf. I look forward for further details.. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 25-Sep-07, at 4:39 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 25 12:26:45 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:26:45 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <20070925154243.D612EA6CE6@smtp2.electricembers.net> References: <20070925154243.D612EA6CE6@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <46F936C5.106@bertola.eu> Parminder ha scritto: >> I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by >> 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 >> minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. > > That will be great. So we can commence IGC meeting at 530 sharp to go till > 730 - 8. I was wondering whether we should schedule a caucus and/or "CS plenary" meeting later in the week. As meetings go until 19:30 there is not much available space, but perhaps we could use Thursday evening (the last day) or Wednesday (but we'd have basically to do it over dinner time). Opinions? -- 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 Tue Sep 25 12:29:49 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:29:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGF synthesis paper Message-ID: New on the IGF website: "The final version a synthesis paper that summarises the content of contributions received as well as the discussions of the open consultations is now available. The document will be translated in all UN languages. All translations should be ready by the end of October 2007." Document at 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 Tue Sep 25 13:07:23 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:07:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> 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> Message-ID: <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > Wolfgang: > > To be honest, i'm a bit pessamistic about the bill of rights proposal. > It was presented at WSIS/Tunis, at the IGF last year - but, not really > caught on outside of a small IGF community. > > I'm a couple of dozen of human rights and legal lists, and there is no > mention of the proposal. > > I really hate to say this - but, from my perspective it just looks like > an Italian project with little or no support from the international > legal and/or human rights community. As one of the people who are working on this, I would like to see comments that are a bit more constructive - if you think that participation is not broad enough yet (and it possibly is), you could join or help spreading the word. It is a bit depressing to see that whenever some people try to roll up their sleeves and work on real advances for human rights, there is much more support from some governments than from fellow civil society participants. 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 lists at privaterra.info Tue Sep 25 13:33:28 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:33:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <46F9404B.4050401@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> Message-ID: Vittorio: I'm just saying that outreach on the initiative has been, well, a bit lacking. Perhaps I'm wrong, and in that case - do tell me how the initiative has grown and started to include players such as - APC, Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, among many others. I've tried to get people and several law schools interested - in fact, I brought a delegation of law students from the University of Toronto to the initial launch in Tunis . They were keen with the the idea, and wanted to contribute similar work that has been done in Canada.. The response, and it's been over two years - has been silence. At least, that is what I'm told first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest one be created so that scholars and human rights professionals can come together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal Concrete ideas - well, if there's an event, forum and/or mailing list - please get someone to get in touch with the following organizations and/or lists: Global Human Rights Education listserv http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-education/ Legal Professionals and Human Rights List http://hrea.org/lists/hr-legal-professionals/markup/maillist.php American Bar Association, International Human Rights Committee http://mail.abanet.org/scripts/wa.exe?A0=INTHUMRIGHTS International Freedom of Expression Exchange http://www.ifex.org (btw. i'm attending their annual meeting in a few weeks. if there's materials you want me to share, such as a summary of the meeting just held - do let me know. Happy to distribute docs and/or share details) As well, the Human Rights Caucus has a great # of members who would be - delighted - to know more. In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There is great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave - it has to really be the work of an active international coalition and not just one person or one country. Again, if there are more people , countries and or regions involved - do let me know. I would just - love - to see progress and movement taking place in this initiative. regards Robert On 25-Sep-07, at 6:07 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Robert Guerra ha scritto: >> Wolfgang: >> To be honest, i'm a bit pessamistic about the bill of rights >> proposal. It was presented at WSIS/Tunis, at the IGF last year - >> but, not really caught on outside of a small IGF community. >> I'm a couple of dozen of human rights and legal lists, and there >> is no mention of the proposal. >> I really hate to say this - but, from my perspective it just looks >> like an Italian project with little or no support from the >> international legal and/or human rights community. > > As one of the people who are working on this, I would like to see > comments that are a bit more constructive - if you think that > participation is not broad enough yet (and it possibly is), you > could join or help spreading the word. > > It is a bit depressing to see that whenever some people try to roll > up their sleeves and work on real advances for human rights, there > is much more support from some governments than from fellow civil > society participants. > > 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 bfausett at internet.law.pro Tue Sep 25 14:07:36 2007 From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:07:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. 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> Message-ID: <4FE1DFF0-5F5C-4CF8-9A37-EF4B6A0B1FA5@internet.law.pro> Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many. http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html http://www.cluetrain.com/ Bret ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 26 05:07:53 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:07:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> 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> <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <56DB04E5-A5F8-4C87-A1AF-85545347FB33@psg.com> On 26 sep 2007, at 09.27, Karl Auerbach wrote: > The danger that I see in all of these governance movements as one of those who is guilty of participation in this governance action, i figure i ought to add a viewpoint to this discussion. > is the desire of good people to impose their sense of morality, > there sense of aesthetics, their cultural values, and their > personal values onto others. What starts out nice can quickly turn > into an Kafkaesque web of restraint and limitation. the problem i see is that we are in a classic example of a tussle* on this. you are absolutely right and i personally agree that any word, or non word should be able to be used as a TLD - even .your-favorite- diety-sucks, .something-explicitly-child-pornographic, .so-and-so- does-it-with-goats or .people-of-this-origin-should-be-gassed . but i found myself in room with people of equal conviction who believed that people on the net should be protected from such things, especially children, and that there must be some restraint on what can be expressed publicly in a TLD. i can argue all i want that they are wrong and that my way is the way it should be. and whenever i can i will, and i may even help someone apply for .words-that-make-the-homophobic-puritan-squirm . but in the world as we know it, policies must attempt to resolve the tussle so that the policies irritate both sides equally. and i must admit, i too have the words i want to see protected. for example, i hate it when i see the names of indigenous peoples used as commercial trademarks, e.g. Lakota used for a car model. so i am happy there is a method by which the Lakota nation could object to big-car-company registering that as a TLD because it would do them harm and have a platform for arguing their case. and i know that this puts me on the opposite side of the tussle on this issue from those who are on the same side on the morality issue. so i voted for a compromise that gives everyone the right to protest and contest a choice, but which outright, prohibits nothing. of course a lot of the viability of this compromise will depend on how it is implemented. but that is the battle to come. i would never argue that the the new gtld policy is perfect - i am not sure there is perfect in a tussling world. in fact we made an explicit decision to the best we could and then review what we had done after a cycle or two. and we did our best to try and bridge the tussles, though i am sure both sides of every tussle can point out where we failed. and, at least to some extent, they will be right. a. * tussle : to make messy or untidy. Tussle was introduced in the Internet context by Clark, Sollins, Wroclawski and Braden in a 2002 paper titled “Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's Internet”. their basic premise is “... one important reality that surrounds the Internet today: different stakeholders that are part of the Internet have interests that may be adverse to each other, and these parties vie to favor their particular interests.” Their emphasis in the paper was mostly architectural, but it applies to policy as well. i think. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 26 05:12:46 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:12:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> 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> <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> Message-ID: EHLO Karl, On 9/26/07, Karl Auerbach wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to forget that the DNS > > is a hierarchical, distributed system (RFCs 799, 1034, 1035, 920, > > 1032, etc, etc). > > > > Now, if you want to put 2 million names in the root zone (instead of > > say for example .com), well you CAN do that, but IMHO you SHOULD NOT. > > Three areas in which I believe we have *technical* disagreement, and one > of policy disagreement: > > First, the idea that DNS is hierarchical is true but in a more limited > way than is generally believed. > > In the absence of DNSSEC it is quite feasible for DNS to be a graph > rather than a hierarchical tree with a single root. And with DNSSEC? Is it less feasible or not feasible at all? > The issues that people conflate are those of consistency of name query > answers with singularity of rootness. The former is a very desirable > property - it fits with the principle of least surprise. The latter is > an undesirable property because it means that DNS would be singular > point of failure, attack, and control. Given that a singular root is the status quo, it seems the vast majority of network operators are willing to put up with this "undesirability". > > As for the number of names in a root zone - I ran some experiments, real > experiments with real Bind and real computers and real data - in which > we created a root zone with millions upon millions of TLDs. (We pretty > much simply elevated the .com zone of that date up one level to be a > test root.) It worked, although the time to load was pathetic because > the poor machine didn't have enough memory (much less of a problem these > days.) > > The limit on the number of names in a root zone has no clear technical > upper bound - it's probably in the hundreds of millions. The limit is > more likely to be based on the rate of administrative errors and the > time to reload. But we know from .com that zones of 60million+ can be > handled with excellent reliability, and from the point of DNS, > experience with a TLD zone is directly applicable to experience with > root zone. I understand it is possible, but that doesn't mean we SHOULD do it. > > By-the-way, I do not agree that having more TLDs in any way requires > that the depth of the hierarchy of DNS be diminished. DNS space > expansions are not zero-sum; growth in on dimension (such as root width) > does not mean a retreat of size in another dimension (such as depth of > the name space.) > I am not arguing that more TLDs REQUIRE less depth. > Those are the technical issues. > > The policy issue is that even if you don't think we need additional TLDs > why should you be empowered to impose your worldview or rather, your TLD > sense of aesthetics, onto others? I'm not arguing that. I am saying that these decisions are made in established fora. Those are the places where policy can be changed, not the IGF. For example, I am currently logged in to the jabber conference room for Afrinic7 meeting. I suggest that those who are concerned about IPv6 resource distribution n the developing world (including gov'ts, CS,) join this discussion (and others like it, instead of "flying down to Rio". Stream can be found here: http://streaming.afrinic.net:8000/afrinic7.mp3 -- 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 Wed Sep 26 03:27:35 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:27:35 -0700 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> Message-ID: <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> McTim wrote: > The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to forget that the DNS > is a hierarchical, distributed system (RFCs 799, 1034, 1035, 920, > 1032, etc, etc). > > Now, if you want to put 2 million names in the root zone (instead of > say for example .com), well you CAN do that, but IMHO you SHOULD NOT. Three areas in which I believe we have *technical* disagreement, and one of policy disagreement: First, the idea that DNS is hierarchical is true but in a more limited way than is generally believed. In the absence of DNSSEC it is quite feasible for DNS to be a graph rather than a hierarchical tree with a single root. The different root groups then serve as portals through which intermediate resolvers find the various TLDs. It works; it is in operation today and has been for several years. And not just on a small scale; I observed the entire island of Taiwan doing so. The issues that people conflate are those of consistency of name query answers with singularity of rootness. The former is a very desirable property - it fits with the principle of least surprise. The latter is an undesirable property because it means that DNS would be singular point of failure, attack, and control. As for the number of names in a root zone - I ran some experiments, real experiments with real Bind and real computers and real data - in which we created a root zone with millions upon millions of TLDs. (We pretty much simply elevated the .com zone of that date up one level to be a test root.) It worked, although the time to load was pathetic because the poor machine didn't have enough memory (much less of a problem these days.) The limit on the number of names in a root zone has no clear technical upper bound - it's probably in the hundreds of millions. The limit is more likely to be based on the rate of administrative errors and the time to reload. But we know from .com that zones of 60million+ can be handled with excellent reliability, and from the point of DNS, experience with a TLD zone is directly applicable to experience with root zone. By-the-way, I do not agree that having more TLDs in any way requires that the depth of the hierarchy of DNS be diminished. DNS space expansions are not zero-sum; growth in on dimension (such as root width) does not mean a retreat of size in another dimension (such as depth of the name space.) Those are the technical issues. The policy issue is that even if you don't think we need additional TLDs why should you be empowered to impose your worldview or rather, your TLD sense of aesthetics, onto others? Remember, way back in the 1970's the telcos did not like the fact that we were playing with packet switched networks. The telcos were investing great sums in their answer to all things - ISDN - and they said "why should anyone be allowed to burden our circuits with this packet switched stuff?" It was a good thing that their vision of the wired world was not imposed to the same degree that has been imposed on those who today want to try new ideas with new TLDs. (By the way I agree with you that nearly every use could go under existing TLDs - but I was shown that things like .bank have a good and strong argument why they must be a TLD) The danger that I see in all of these governance movements is the desire of good people to impose their sense of morality, there sense of aesthetics, their cultural values, and their personal values onto others. What starts out nice can quickly turn into an Kafkaesque web of restraint and limitation. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Sep 26 07:10:22 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:40:22 +0530 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <46F936C5.106@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070926111043.0957C67857@smtp1.electricembers.net> > I was wondering whether we should schedule a caucus and/or "CS plenary" > meeting later in the week. As meetings go until 19:30 there is not much > available space, but perhaps we could use Thursday evening (the last > day) or Wednesday (but we'd have basically to do it over dinner time). > Opinions? But wouldn't 11th 5 or 530 PM be ideal, when we have more time and space. We can try to make pre IGF afternoon/ evening as a regular IGC annual meeting to catch the maximum possible numbers - without the hustle and bustle of an ongoing IGF. We can try another smaller shorter meeting later in the week as well, but lets go along with the 11th meeting as the main one for the IGC. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:57 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Cc: 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Carlos Afonso'; 'Wolfgang'; 'William Drake' > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th > > Parminder ha scritto: > >> I agree with Lee, we can be flexible and try to end GigaNet business by > >> 5:00 if it helps. If a few hard-core giganetters miss the first 20 > >> minutes or so of a 5:00 meeting it is not a big deal. > > > > That will be great. So we can commence IGC meeting at 530 sharp to go > till > > 730 - 8. > > I was wondering whether we should schedule a caucus and/or "CS plenary" > meeting later in the week. As meetings go until 19:30 there is not much > available space, but perhaps we could use Thursday evening (the last > day) or Wednesday (but we'd have basically to do it over dinner time). > Opinions? > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Sep 26 02:35:15 2007 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:35:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN NomCom - selections Message-ID: ICANN Nominating Committee selections have been announced, please see (and copied below.) Congratulations to Avri -- and to all the other's selected. I know Olga Cavalli is known to some of you through GigaNet. Best, Adam Nominating Committee Announces New Board Members and Supporting Organisation Roles 25 September 2007 The 2007 ICANN Nominating Committee (NomCom) has completed its selections: ICANN Board of Directors * Harald Tveit Alvastrand (Norway, Europe) * Dennis Jennings (Ireland/UK, Europe) * Jean-Jacques Subrenat (France, Europe) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010 GNSO Council * Avri Doria (USA, North America) * Olga Cavalli (Argentina, Latin America & Caribbean) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2009 At-Large Advisory Committee * Vanda Scartezini (Brazil, Latin America & Caribbean) * Fatimata Seye Sylla (Senegal, Africa) * Nguyen Thu Hue (Vietnam, Asia/Australia/Pacific) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2009 ccNSO Council * Nashwa Abdel-Baki (Egypt, Africa) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2007 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010 The biographies of the Nominees will also be posted shortly at http://nomcom.icann.org/candidate-bios-2007.htm. The 2007 Nominating Committee will also be posting a summary of its work on its web page at http://nomcom.icann.org. The 2007 Nominating Committee received 93 Statements of Interest, drawn from all five of the geographic regions during an open nominating period that ran from 1 February 2007 to 18 May 2007. 12 candidates were female and 81 were male. 25 candidates were from North America, 23 candidates were from Europe, 23 were from Asia/Australia/Pacific, 13 were from Africa and 11 were from Latin America/Caribbean. Some candidates are counted in more than one region due to dual citizenship. Those selected will assume their duties at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual Meeting for 2007 in Los Angeles, California on 2 November 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 vb at bertola.eu Wed Sep 26 06:58:18 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:58:18 +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> Message-ID: <46FA3B4A.6040503@bertola.eu> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > Vittorio: > > Milton mentioned a few messages ago a key fact - that we already have > a universal declaration of human rights. There is no need to reinvent > the wheel . Let's apply principles contained in it, not try to draft > something new that might weaken rights - something a great # of > govts would surely love to do. I think we are in agreement, as I replied to you yesterday: > I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we should be > aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed at the > IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the coalitions. > There already are too many high level documents, and not enough > practical respect for human rights, or clarity about "down to earth" > principles that any blogger and any webmaster can apply. The BoR > coalition should thus discuss the conceptual and formal framework to > get to several declarations of rights, all deriving from the > fundamental statements of human rights, and all coming to a level > which is clear, applicable and enforceable. 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 Sep 26 06:22:29 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:22:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >> you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak >> about abortion, and that your freedom of expression >> would be seriously harmed if you had to resort to >> publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. > > In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in > the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the > earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD > "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument > are you making, my friend? I am making the argument that it does not make any practical difference for the freedom and accessibility of the *content* whether it is located at the first or at the second identifier. You could say the same things without provoking irked reactions in anyone (and yes, TLD requests are clearly provocative, just look at the amount of reaction to .xxx); instead, you insist on a request that it is not offensive for you, and is not offensive for me, but is offensive to many; and since it does not bring any perceivable advance to your freedom, these people may even think that you are purposedly trying to offend them and their deep moral (religious, in some cases) convictions. This also applies to Karl's reply - Karl, I do respect your freedom to live as you like, but when we move from the offline to the online world, and speak about something at the root level of the Internet, the entire planet is packed in the same room. It's not like "if you don't like this way of life go live somewhere else"; you have to find a compromise. The result won't be 100% free for people who value personal liberties, and won't be 100% moral for people who value communitarian philosophies or who are religious (of whatever religion). But you should do your best to find something that is acceptable to as many different cultures as possible. -- 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 lists at privaterra.info Wed Sep 26 06:35:07 2007 From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:35:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA32E5.2090303@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> Message-ID: Vittorio: Milton mentioned a few messages ago a key fact - that we already have a universal declaration of human rights. There is no need to reinvent the wheel . Let's apply principles contained in it, not try to draft something new that might weaken rights - something a great # of govts would surely love to do. The direction we might want to go is : 1. to make sure that private entities also abide by it as well. 2. Add binding enforcement mechanisms so that countries , companies and other stake-holders that infringe on rights don't just get a slap on the wrist. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Sep 26 01:32:59 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:32:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: People, I think we have had this conversation, but now we are discussing it from a different perspective. I agree with Vittorio, but for different reasons than he has given. Selective comments inline: On 9/26/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >The basis of living together in a globally diverse > >world is to respect each other. > > Yes, indeed, and tolerance of diversity is the surest test of this kind > of respect. The right to filter or block access should be devolved to > the user level. and it is. I can filter out all emails from , I can write a rule into my firewall to block all my users from seeing http://internetgovernance.org (but what would be the fun in that?) > > The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to confer upon TLD > creation some kind of massive global public endorsement. The idea that > there is something "special" about creating a TLD is a > politico-technical myth. The administration of the TLD space is just a > technical coordination function, no different in principle from the > coordination of second level domains. > The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to forget that the DNS is a hierarchical, distributed system (RFCs 799, 1034, 1035, 920, 1032, etc, etc). Now, if you want to put 2 million names in the root zone (instead of say for example .com), well you CAN do that, but IMHO you SHOULD NOT. If you do that, you CAN still have hierarchy (info.abortion), but in reality the DNS architecture will be flat (ter) and not hierarchical as intended in it's original architecture. If you'd like to change the architecture of the DNS, I suggest that IETF lists are the place to do that, and not the IGF. In addition, the registry that has .abortion will be much more likely to censor 2nd level domains than a gTLD like .info. For example, I can see that if the Family Values Coalition runs the registry for .abortion, they might not be keen to allow IPPF to register "livesaresavedby.abortion". Conversely, I can see that they would be more keen to allow "stopall.abortion". Karl (next mail) or ICANN can write all the rules they want about registry actions, but I can still see lots (more) skullduggery of the above type possible in the namespace with a flat DNS. > >I know that this might in some cases tend to > >self-censorship, > > Thanks for the honesty. But in your formulation, it does not "tend to" > self-censorship, it is a full-fledged philosophy of self-censorship. > > >are just talking about not slapping certain > >issues in the face of some stakeholders through > >a highly provocative global political action). > > I would invite you and others to examine the logical relationship > between the statement above and the statement below: > > >you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak > >about abortion, and that your freedom of expression > >would be seriously harmed if you had to resort to > >publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. > > In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in > the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the > earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD > "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument > are you making, my friend? > It's clear to me that he is saying that your freedom of experssion would NOT be harmed if you had to publish content at www.abortion.info instead of at www.info.abortion. I agree with him. -- 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 Tue Sep 25 21:41:11 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:41:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46F96DAF.1070609@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> Message-ID: <46F9B8B7.5090407@cavebear.com> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton, the position you are pushing is that anyone should be free to > get a domain such as ".abortion" (your example) or ".childpornography" > or dot-whatever-blasphemy, and if there are countries of the world that > are unhappy about that, they should censor these domains or break out of > the global Internet. I don't know for a fact that that is what Milton was suggesting. But it is certainly what I feel is not merely appropriate, it is necessary. We will destroy the internet if we reduce the internet to the thin residual that is left after removing every pieces that is offensive to someone, somewhere. Why shouldn't there be TLD for .abortion? Does one think that if we don't have a TLD that the abortions will go away? What about people who engage in extreme puppy fumping, are they to be denied the .puppyfumpers TLD because some bitty in Tomania (from Chaplin's movie the Great Dictator) gets his/her nose bent because they don't like the thought of puppies being fumped? If someone finds work on the Sabbath or on holy days offensive should we shut down the internet on those days? The idea that every conceivable burr and splinter has to be removed from the internet else people will not interact is an idea that is inconsistent with to the history of mankind and our oft demonstrated human capacity to reach across borders, languages, religions, and races. The idea that any body of internet governance should act as a modern day Torquemada or Savonarola is, to use an understating euphemism, discomforting. It is not that this has not been tried before - in 1515 the Lateran Council tried to require that all books obtain the approval of the Catholic church in Rome - De impressione liborum - http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm - (Look for the phrase "On printing books" to find the relevant part.) It did not work. In fact a rather significant process of dissent was begun a mere two years later in Wittenberg Germany. Sure, we ought to remove barriers that serve no purpose. But we ought not to erect ICANN as the internet net nanny that suppresses expression because it feels that someone might be offended. The price of freedom of expression is a thickened skin. > Moreover, if there is half of the world that is offended by such a > visible reference to, say, abortion or blasphemies or whatever, I > think that you have to respect that. Respect yes, but change my behavior to fit norms to which I do not subscribe, no. There are large numbers of fundamental religious people out there, of many religions, who not merely disagree with my lifestyle - comfortable, California beach, liberal, progressive, humanistic, secular - who actually want to reach out and kill me as they did to so many of my fellow countryman a few years back in New York and Oklahoma City. I am not going to fit my life or expression into their strictures. It would be very improper indeed for a body of internet governance to empower such forces and opinions by giving them a lever to suppress the behavior of those who hold ideas contrary to their beliefs. Yet that is exactly the road that ICANN is taking - suppression or, to use the more blunt word, "censorship". And its not just suppression on the basis of a conflict of beliefs; ICANN has elevated the trademark industry to the level of a universal church and turned trademarks into words from on high that may not be uttered on the internet without the making of appropriate honorific noises. Even originators of ideas and words - for example "Nike" - are subordinated to ICANN's golden calf of trademark, As for the internet being a "major factor in democratizing many societies". I disagree. It is the desire and need of people who want to have a voice in the bodies that govern them that is the driving force. The communication afforded by the internet was merely a lubricant making organization easier. Telephones and televisions have arguably had a greater facilitating impact. It does seem that the internet can be as much as force of suppression as it is of promotion of democratic principles. For example, ICANN itself, the epitome of the internet based enterprise, retreated from democratic elections and replaced democratic processes with something substantially less. > Incidentally, I think that there are several other important issues that > are affected by ICANN's new gTLD process. For example, depending on > application fees and technical requirements, the developing world might > be deprived of the possibility of accessing this resource I quite agree with you. Not merely the developing world, pretty much anybody who does not have the resources to pass through ICANN's gauntlet of incumbent protective irrelevancies. ICANN is proposing to continue its process of choosing TLD operators on criteria, that were we choosing which airlines could fly, would be akin to evaluating whether they serve Coke or Pepsi during the flight and whether they publish the names and address of people who buy tickets rather than evaluating whether they have safe airplanes, safely maintained and operated. I have suggested a simple criteria for new TLDs - http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000324.html - that avoids all of that nonesense and substitutes an expensive, objective, fast procedure. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 25 15:30:00 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:30:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <46F9404B.4050401@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> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >As one of the people who are working on this, I would >like to see comments that are a bit more constructive [snip] > >It is a bit depressing to see that whenever some people >try to roll up their sleeves and work on real advances >for human rights, there is much more support from some >governments than from fellow civil society >participants. Vittorio: I think it is constructive to raise and discuss these issues. I also have doubts about the Internet Bill of Rights proposal. My concerns are not about outreach, but about substance. First, I think it was Meryem Marzouki who at one point raised serious questions about encouraging governments to redefine basic human rights for the Internet, in that we could end up losing not gaining. Those fears, which I at first did not take too seriously, were reinforced by our exprience with the "Keep the Core Neutral" campaign. I noticed that you actively opposed efforts within ICANN to prevent ICANN from exercising "content control" over TLD strings. You advanced instead a communitarian approach that would not recognize any specific right to freedom of action but only a right of an institutionalized community around ICANN to suppress whatever expressions, via TLD strings, it did not like. (Let me know if I am not stating your position correctly, but it is recorded in the transcript of the puerto rico meeting). I am curious to know what a "bill of rights" means to you when you do not accept what seems to me to be a very simple, basic and straightforward right to freely choose a TLD string that expresses a concept. It appears to me that a group of activists within ICANN "rolled up their sleeves" and worked very hard to advance human rights in that context. Not only were they not supported by you, they were vocally opposed by you. There is also a practical issue. The language of Article 19 in the UN Charter is very broad, and can easily be applied to the Internet. Yet daily, governments ignore and violate those guarantees. I would like to know how a new Internet Bill of Rights moves us beyond that. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 25 14:50:35 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:50:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <4FE1DFF0-5F5C-4CF8-9A37-EF4B6A0B1FA5@internet.law.pro> 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> <4FE1DFF0-5F5C-4CF8-9A37-EF4B6A0B1FA5@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: At 11:07 AM -0700 9/25/07, Bret Fausett wrote: >Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the >righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of >Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two >examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many. I agree with Robert, though, that if you want these powerful words to have a tangible effect in the world of political power one must organize politically and mobilize a broad constituency to talk about the ideas and ultimately push for their adoption in law. Words may inspire people from the top down but political power is ultimately expressed from the bottom up and must be instantiated in legislation, regulation and judiciary enforcement in order to take effect tangibly in a society, especially in areas where markets alone simply cannot suffice. It's the "adopted by many" part that requires more than just the words. The point here is to get public policy to reflect this agenda, and in fact the Barlow Declaration and Cluetrain are not consistently expressed in terms of law at this time. This is a persistent disconnect in the policy dynamics of the tech community. Silicon Valley and The Beltway still view each other mostly with apprehension (in the US, and I believe this dynamic extends internationally as well). This is a systemic problem of communities that are not currently engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I think it can (and therefore should) be improved. Those in the tech community who believe that invention and rhetoric and markets alone (should I add "consensus processes"?) can solve problems of political power are fooling themselves. And have no doubt that politics are *intimately* and *fundamentally* involved in ICT policies by now, here in the Information Society. Politics are not mocked. :-) 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 vb at bertola.eu Tue Sep 25 15:56:27 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:56:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. 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> Message-ID: <46F967EB.1050502@bertola.eu> Thanks, this is a valuable contribution. Robert Guerra ha scritto: > first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest one be > created so that scholars and human rights professionals can come > together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal Yes, there's a coalition website at http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org, a mailing list at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights, and also a conference website at http://www.dfiritaly2007.it/ . > In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet > bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There is > great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave - it > has to really be the work of an active international coalition and not > just one person or one country. Sure, but someone has to start, and I think this is a problem for all dynamic coalitions; at least in terms of mailing list messages, apart from the Privacy one, the others seem to have activity levels that are similar to or even less than that of the Bill of Rights DC. Personally, I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we should be aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed at the IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the coalitions. There already are too manyv high level documents, and not enough practical respect for human rights, or clarity about "down to earth" principles that any blogger and any webmaster can apply. The BoR coalition should thus discuss the conceptual and formal framework to get to several declarations of rights, all deriving from the fundamental statements of human rights, and all coming to a level which is clear, applicable and enforceable. On the other hand, this is for what I know the first attempt to a really multistakeholder approach to this discussion. In the past, the techies released their edicts, some NGOs did their own, and some governments also did the same. What we need is to understand how to put all of this together. -- 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 Tue Sep 25 16:21:03 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:21:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > >> As one of the people who are working on this, I would >> like to see comments that are a bit more constructive > [snip] >> It is a bit depressing to see that whenever some people >> try to roll up their sleeves and work on real advances >> for human rights, there is much more support from some >> governments than from fellow civil society >> participants. > > Vittorio: > I think it is constructive to raise and discuss these issues. I also > have doubts about the Internet Bill of Rights proposal. My concerns are > not about outreach, but about substance. First, I think it was Meryem > Marzouki who at one point raised serious questions about encouraging > governments to redefine basic human rights for the Internet, in that we > could end up losing not gaining. Those fears, which I at first did not > take too seriously, were reinforced by our exprience with the "Keep the > Core Neutral" campaign. I noticed that you actively opposed efforts > within ICANN to prevent ICANN from exercising "content control" over TLD > strings. You advanced instead a communitarian approach that would not > recognize any specific right to freedom of action but only a right of an > institutionalized community around ICANN to suppress whatever > expressions, via TLD strings, it did not like. (Let me know if I am not > stating your position correctly, but it is recorded in the transcript of > the puerto rico meeting). Milton, the position you are pushing is that anyone should be free to get a domain such as ".abortion" (your example) or ".childpornography" or dot-whatever-blasphemy, and if there are countries of the world that are unhappy about that, they should censor these domains or break out of the global Internet. I see that as shooting ourselves in the foot to prove the fact that we are free to shoot ourselves in the foot. The Internet has been the major factor in democratizing many societies around the world, before their non-democratic governments could realize what was happening. We live in a time where governments are looking for whatever excuse to start to put licenses, rules and controls over the Internet. Giving them a good one is the last thing we should be doing. Moreover, if there is half of the world that is offended by such a visible reference to, say, abortion or blasphemies or whatever, I think that you have to respect that. The basis of living together in a globally diverse world is to respect each other. I know that this might in some cases tend to self-censorship, but you can't build a world of peace by ignoring other people's sensitivities (and note that we are not talking about censoring content, we are just talking about not slapping certain issues in the face of some stakeholders through a highly provocative global political action). And would you find it acceptable if ICANN approved the creation of TLDs which incite to racism, homophoby, war, or whatever? Do you draw a line somewhere? How? There's not just Milton Muller's freedom of expression, but other human rights are involved. Incidentally, I think that there are several other important issues that are affected by ICANN's new gTLD process. For example, depending on application fees and technical requirements, the developing world might be deprived of the possibility of accessing this resource, and made dependent on American and European companies (I spent the afternoon arguing about this on the ICANN Board list). Or the entire system may be optimized for business, thus making it difficult for NGOs to apply. These issues are IMHO more immediate and impacting than your claim that you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak about abortion, and that your freedom of expression would be seriously harmed if you had to resort to publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. -- 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 Tue Sep 25 16:23:12 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:23:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <46F967EB.1050502@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> <46F967EB.1050502@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46F96E30.3030403@rits.org.br> I would suggest we take a look at the results of the Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights which will take place two days from now, besides the suggestions already made. Most of the doubts expressed so far here will certainly be considered there. --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Thanks, this is a valuable contribution. > > Robert Guerra ha scritto: >> first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest one >> be created so that scholars and human rights professionals can come >> together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal > > Yes, there's a coalition website at > http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org, a mailing list at > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights, and also a > conference website at http://www.dfiritaly2007.it/ . > >> In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet >> bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There >> is great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave - >> it has to really be the work of an active international coalition and >> not just one person or one country. > > Sure, but someone has to start, and I think this is a problem for all > dynamic coalitions; at least in terms of mailing list messages, apart > from the Privacy one, the others seem to have activity levels that are > similar to or even less than that of the Bill of Rights DC. > > Personally, I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we > should be aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed at > the IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the coalitions. > There already are too manyv high level documents, and not enough > practical respect for human rights, or clarity about "down to earth" > principles that any blogger and any webmaster can apply. The BoR > coalition should thus discuss the conceptual and formal framework to get > to several declarations of rights, all deriving from the fundamental > statements of human rights, and all coming to a level which is clear, > applicable and enforceable. > > On the other hand, this is for what I know the first attempt to a really > multistakeholder approach to this discussion. In the past, the techies > released their edicts, some NGOs did their own, and some governments > also did the same. What we need is to understand how to put all of this > together. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Tue Sep 25 16:05:57 2007 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:05:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. 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> <4FE1DFF0-5F5C-4CF8-9A37-EF4B6A0B1FA5@internet.law.pro> Message-ID: <20070925201123.27B3EE2277@smtp3.electricembers.net> Hi In 2001, James Graham proposed the creation of "Group for the Internationalization of Cyberspace (GIC)" [The Internationalization of Cyberspace for a Legal E-Qual World: A Latin American Initiative] He said: "The present initiative aims to resolve most of the actual legal problems that are discussed on national and international level. Internet being transnational by its nature, regulators do accord that there is a real need for some international legislation. However, their will of protection of sovereignty does not permit today to find a global solution. Although, some treaties have been achieved (e.g. the Cybercrime Treaty of the European Council) or will be achieved (e.g. the Jurisdiction Convention of the Conference of the Hague), no international organization does treat Internet and its issues as a whole. Beneath specific topics like e-signatures or cybercrimes, there are other issues like the digital divide and the respect of fundamental freedoms.". You can find the proposal and Project in: http://www.alfa-redi.com/gic/ Six years ago, and for some reason, the document only appear in some articles in LAC (i think the same reason that have only a few LAC organizations in another proposals). Maybe you can use the proposal for the discuss. Erick Iriarte Ahon At 01:50 p.m. 25/09/2007, Dan Krimm wrote: >At 11:07 AM -0700 9/25/07, Bret Fausett wrote: > >Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the > >righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of > >Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two > >examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many. > > >I agree with Robert, though, that if you want these powerful words to have >a tangible effect in the world of political power one must organize >politically and mobilize a broad constituency to talk about the ideas and >ultimately push for their adoption in law. > >Words may inspire people from the top down but political power is >ultimately expressed from the bottom up and must be instantiated in >legislation, regulation and judiciary enforcement in order to take effect >tangibly in a society, especially in areas where markets alone simply >cannot suffice. > >It's the "adopted by many" part that requires more than just the words. >The point here is to get public policy to reflect this agenda, and in fact >the Barlow Declaration and Cluetrain are not consistently expressed in >terms of law at this time. > >This is a persistent disconnect in the policy dynamics of the tech >community. Silicon Valley and The Beltway still view each other mostly >with apprehension (in the US, and I believe this dynamic extends >internationally as well). This is a systemic problem of communities that >are not currently engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I think it >can (and therefore should) be improved. > >Those in the tech community who believe that invention and rhetoric and >markets alone (should I add "consensus processes"?) can solve problems of >political power are fooling themselves. And have no doubt that politics >are *intimately* and *fundamentally* involved in ICT policies by now, here >in the Information Society. > >Politics are not mocked. :-) > >Dan >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Sep 25 18:16:28 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46F96DAF.1070609@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> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >Milton, the position you are pushing is that anyone >should be free to get a domain such as ".abortion" >(your example) or ".childpornography" or dot-whatever- >blasphemy, and if there are countries of the world that >are unhappy about that, they should censor these >domains or break out of the global Internet. No, I am merely calling your attention to the obvious fact that if countries have the right to censor one level of the name space there is no moral, legal or practical basis for denying them the right to censor any other level. We do not advocate censoring any domains, we have simply pointed out that countries can and will do that. What you blithely ignore is that they also do so at the second level. Tell me again why you defend their right to do this at the top level and oppose it at the second? I don't recall hearing the justification. >We live in a time where governments are looking for >whatever excuse to start to put licenses, rules and >controls over the Internet. Giving them a good one >is the last thing we should be doing. And that is precisely what you have been doing. See below. >Moreover, if there is half of the world that is offended >by such a visible reference to, say, abortion or blasphemies >or whatever, I think that you have to respect that. Here is the excuse you offer them. Obviously, this argument has nothing to do with whether a name or concept is in the top level, the second level or the content of a web site itself. >The basis of living together in a globally diverse >world is to respect each other. Yes, indeed, and tolerance of diversity is the surest test of this kind of respect. The right to filter or block access should be devolved to the user level. The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to confer upon TLD creation some kind of massive global public endorsement. The idea that there is something "special" about creating a TLD is a politico-technical myth. The administration of the TLD space is just a technical coordination function, no different in principle from the coordination of second level domains. >I know that this might in some cases tend to >self-censorship, Thanks for the honesty. But in your formulation, it does not "tend to" self-censorship, it is a full-fledged philosophy of self-censorship. >are just talking about not slapping certain >issues in the face of some stakeholders through >a highly provocative global political action). I would invite you and others to examine the logical relationship between the statement above and the statement below: >you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak >about abortion, and that your freedom of expression >would be seriously harmed if you had to resort to >publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument are you making, my friend? --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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 26 07:33:40 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:33:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: 46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu Message-ID: And yet another perspective on the gTLD Governance issue: Although �in-Principle� I would agree that the Freedom to designate a gTLD is important, I would disagree �in-Practice� for the following reasons. The �Commoditization� of gTLD space would undoubtedly take place, same as it has in the Domain Launch and Domain-Aftermarket(s). This would lead to resource-capitalization (price escalation) and restrict resource-allocation to whom can afford the price. Secondly, there is the possibility of a strategic-resource-allocation (a portfolio of gTLDs) being used to malalign sociopolitical & cultural realties. [Citizen Kane syndrome / inner syndication] Publishers and maybe more importantly the Corporate-Boards that sit behind them, would most certainly be able to afford most strategic & desirable gTLD spaces, [see post: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-09/msg00058.html ] and with such wield their will as they see fit, thus corporatizing control of the Fourth Estate. Already with .Travel (as Edward Hasbrouck has depicted) and .3X we have seen a consortium of �Cartel-Publishers� vying for gTLD space. Don�t be fooled, these are not Individuals such as Christopher Ambler of .Web, they are Market funded Citizen Kane Inc.s � 'Independent Media' will be submarined with Static*, and so to would the independence and democracy we all cherish. Pushes localized for gTLDs such as .3x under guises of Freedom-of-Speech and Freedom-of-the-Press, are in fact designed for the benefit of Publishers et.al.. Ret.: Who stands to Profit ?: The People or the Publishers Governance?: Rule-the-Root or Defend the Democratic Space Y -- Ref: Private Equity Acquisitions in Media and Telecom: CITI meeting September 28, 2007 http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-09/msg00058.html The Age of Spin: Controlling the Message [2007 Los Angeles Times Festival of Books] http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0507/btv051307_4b.ram [Real Player] * STATIC: GOVERNMENT LIARS, MEDIA CHEERLEADERS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO FIGHT BACK by Amy Goodman (Author), David Goodman (Author) ISBN: 1401302939 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 25 15:24:42 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:24:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> 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> Message-ID: <46F9607A.8070309@rits.org.br> The organizations listed seem to indicate otherwise, although there is a strong Italian presence: Ministry for Innovation in Public Administration, Government of Italy Ministry of Culture, Government of Brazil IP Justice, United States Società Internet (ISOC Italy), Italy Centre for Technology and Society, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil Free Software Foundation Europe Committee for a Democratic United Nations, Germany Institute of International Law, University of Graz, Austria Net Dialogue Project, Universities of Harvard and Stanford, United States The concrete outcome, if any, will probably not be *the* bill of rights, but a series of propositions regarding human rights and the Internet -- or so I gather from the overall feeling of the Brazilian participants. --c.a. Robert Guerra wrote: > Wolfgang: > > To be honest, i'm a bit pessamistic about the bill of rights proposal. > It was presented at WSIS/Tunis, at the IGF last year - but, not really > caught on outside of a small IGF community. > > I'm a couple of dozen of human rights and legal lists, and there is no > mention of the proposal. > > I really hate to say this - but, from my perspective it just looks like > an Italian project with little or no support from the international > legal and/or human rights community. > > That being said, I hope i'm wrong and the initiative has grown since > last igf. I look forward for further details.. > > > regards, > > Robert > --- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > Tel +1 416 893 0377 > > > > On 25-Sep-07, at 4:39 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > >> http://opensocialweb.org/2007/09/05/bill-of-rights/ >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 ca at rits.org.br Tue Sep 25 15:44:42 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:44:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] GigaNet themes In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <46F913A9.9050602@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DB6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46F9652A.3040908@rits.org.br> This generic mortal is bugging with no reason -- I will not be at the Giganet (soon to be Petanet or even Exanet!) event, if our LA&C meeting does happen. Good luck! --c.a. Milton L Mueller wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 9:57 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: Governance; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th > >> There is nothing showing up in the governance list about >> what Giganet is doing. It would be interesting at least >> to know what themes are being discussed, a glimpse on >> the agenda and so on. Are academic observers allowed? >> Will there be access to the papers by generic mortals >> afterwards? > > Carlos, you are anything but generic (although I hear that during your > youth you came close to achieving status as a generic latin american > urban guerilla). > > GigaNet is an open conference. We offer academic papers, and papers by > academics, but look forward to inflicting them on as many nonacademics > as possible. We will inundate you with marketing materials like everyone > else soon enough. > > The panels will be held in the conference venue. > > Here are the themes: > > Session 1: A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > In recent years developing countries, civil society organizations, and > concerned academics have promoted broad "development agendas" for reform > of the international regimes and organizations governing trade, debt, > and intellectual property. But in the field of Internet governance, no > parallel initiative has taken shape. These papers analyze the linkages > between existing global Internet governance mechanisms and development; > the possible need for new mechanisms; and the potential foundations of a > holistic development agenda. > > Session 2: The Changing Institutionalization of Internet Governance > The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) raised the profile > and changed the global policy discourse of Internet governance. The > creation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was the most visible > result, but there was also a willingness of more governments to > participate in ICANN, increased diversity of players entering Internet > governance processes as stakeholders, and wider discussion Internet > governance mechanisms and decision making. These papers explore the > dynamics of the changing institutionalization process. > > Session 3: Critical Policy Issues in Internet Governance > Governance of the Internet is also defined by the way public policy > makers respond to specific issues and problems, such as identity and > security, or net neutrality. Each of these issue-domains involves its > own distinctive set of policy conflicts, stakeholders, technologies and > institutional arrangements. These papers examine how global governance > arrangements are being defined around specific Internet policy issues. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Sep 26 09:17:13 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:17:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA32E5.2090303@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> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >>> you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak about abortion, and >>> that your freedom of expression would be seriously harmed if you had to >>> resort to publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. >> >> In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in >> the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the >> earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD >> "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument >> are you making, my friend? > > I am making the argument that it does not make any practical difference for > the freedom and accessibility of the *content* whether it is located at the > first or at the second identifier. You could say the same things without I submit that there are two differences: one minor, one hard to quantify. The minor difference is that shorter URLs look better on a bus or a billboard and are easier to remember. The other, more important but unquantifiable, difference is that as soon as you introduce another intermediary (the people runing the registry, the registrar, whatever), you add another party that might choose to engage in censorship by terminating the agreement. If I have .mine I need only wory about ICANN (and the US government and/or GAC) assuming I can choose a friendly host for my site. If I have mine.yours I have to worry about ICANN, my registry and my registrar (and associated governments). If I have mine.hers.yours (or hers.yours/mysite), I have at least two more people to worry about, and so on. I am not saying that this factor alone justifies TLD expansion (I think the economic case does that). I am merely suggesting that there may in fact be a practical difference here of somewhat uncertain scope and non-zero salience. [...] -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 26 09:37:33 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs Message-ID: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm beginning to see some reasons for allowing many more gTLDs. A question that has occurred to me though - what about ccTLDs? They have invested a lot of time and money building up something that is often quite a strong "brand" and gaining consumer confidence. And then there's cybersquatting - to me the scourge of the domain name business. And then there's security for companies. If I'm selling widgets at widget.com, yet someone tries to copy me at widgets.sdgf, and there are hundreds of TLDs, how am I as a businessman to easily keep track of this? It's hard enough now. I'm interested in responses. Cheers David ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola Cc: Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 11:17:13 PM Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >>> you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak about abortion, and >>> that your freedom of expression would be seriously harmed if you had to >>> resort to publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. >> >> In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in >> the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the >> earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD >> "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument >> are you making, my friend? > > I am making the argument that it does not make any practical difference for > the freedom and accessibility of the *content* whether it is located at the > first or at the second identifier. You could say the same things without I submit that there are two differences: one minor, one hard to quantify. The minor difference is that shorter URLs look better on a bus or a billboard and are easier to remember. The other, more important but unquantifiable, difference is that as soon as you introduce another intermediary (the people runing the registry, the registrar, whatever), you add another party that might choose to engage in censorship by terminating the agreement. If I have .mine I need only wory about ICANN (and the US government and/or GAC) assuming I can choose a friendly host for my site. If I have mine.yours I have to worry about ICANN, my registry and my registrar (and associated governments). If I have mine.hers.yours (or hers.yours/mysite), I have at least two more people to worry about, and so on. I am not saying that this factor alone justifies TLD expansion (I think the economic case does that). I am merely suggesting that there may in fact be a practical difference here of somewhat uncertain scope and non-zero salience. [...] -- 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 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Sep 26 10:19:54 2007 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, David Goldstein wrote: > I'm beginning to see some reasons for allowing many more gTLDs. A > question that has occurred to me though - what about ccTLDs? They have > invested a lot of time and money building up something that is often > quite a strong "brand" and gaining consumer confidence. The idea that any first-movers should be able to engage in anti-competitive behavior of stopping competitors merely because they were first is now long discredited in the legal and economic literature. To the extent that ccTLDs (and others) have built a 'brand' and 'trust' they will reap those benefits by retaining their customers and getting new ones -- even if they charge a premium. Let a 1000 flowers bloom. If you mean - should we give every government a second ccTLD-like name to play with and/or sell -- why not, as part of a general expansion in the namespace? > > And then there's cybersquatting - to me the scourge of the domain name > business. And then there's security for companies. If I'm selling > widgets at widget.com, yet someone tries to copy me at widgets.sdgf, and > there are hundreds of TLDs, how am I as a businessman to easily keep > track of this? It's hard enough now. If you have a common name like 'widgets' or 'delta' or indeed any name other than a coined (made up) name like 'exxon' then you are already in a world where there is vast concurrent trademark use along both geographic and sectoral lines. We allow the same name to be used for the same business in different countries; we allow the same name to used for different types of business in the same country. It has always been thus. Creating new TLDs lets those firms that were a little later to the party -- smaller firms, third world firms -- have a form of nearer-parity with the first-movers. Many of the registrants will be legit, not squatters. (As for the coined names, there are also legal non-commercial uses, e.g. I could create exxon.tld to critique its lobbying strategy or its role in global warming.) Recall that squatters are people who buy names hoping to ransom them to the holder of a cognate TM; ownership of a mark does not (contary to all the PR by mark-holders) actually give you any legal right to domain name, rather all it gives you is the right to prevent competing uses that might confuse or tend to mislead customers. If there are enough TLDs created, the squatter's power to deny names to people who would make legal and higher-value uses of them (often TM holders) will be greatly reduced since the cost of hoarding goes up linearly with the number of new TLDs but the scarcity factor drops quickly past some unknown point. Many new TLDs kills cyberquatting just by the work of normal economics. It is the drip-drip strategy that keeps squatters in business: just enough new TLDs to hoard, not too many to make the bottom fall out of the market. And finally, the UDRP isn't going away and it has proved remarkably friendly to plaintiff TM/SM holders. See generally ICANN's UDRP: Its Causes and (Partial) Cures, 67 BROOK. L. REV. 605 (2002), available at http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/udrp.pdf > > I'm interested in responses. You asked... > > Cheers > David > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola > Cc: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Wednesday, 26 September, 2007 11:17:13 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >>>> you need to get the www.info.abortion URL to speak about abortion, and >>>> that your freedom of expression would be seriously harmed if you had to >>>> resort to publishing the same speech at www.abortion.info instead. >>> >>> In the latter paragraph, you are arguing that there is no difference in >>> the two identifier formulations and that the issue is trivial. In the >>> earlier paragraph, you are saying that the mere existence of the TLD >>> "slaps people in the face" and is "highly provocative." Which argument >>> are you making, my friend? >> >> I am making the argument that it does not make any practical difference for >> the freedom and accessibility of the *content* whether it is located at the >> first or at the second identifier. You could say the same things without > > I submit that there are two differences: one minor, one hard to quantify. > The minor difference is that shorter URLs look better on a bus or a > billboard and are easier to remember. The other, more important but > unquantifiable, difference is that as soon as you introduce another > intermediary (the people runing the registry, the registrar, whatever), > you add another party that might choose to engage in censorship by > terminating the agreement. If I have .mine I need only wory about ICANN > (and the US government and/or GAC) assuming I can choose a friendly host > for my site. If I have mine.yours I have to worry about ICANN, my > registry and my registrar (and associated governments). If I have > mine.hers.yours (or hers.yours/mysite), I have at least two more people to > worry about, and so on. > > I am not saying that this factor alone justifies TLD expansion (I think > the economic case does that). I am merely suggesting that there may in > fact be a practical difference here of somewhat uncertain scope and > non-zero salience. > > [...] > > -- 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 seiiti.lists at googlemail.com Wed Sep 26 11:04:15 2007 From: seiiti.lists at googlemail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:04:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: [skip] > The right to filter or block access should be devolved to > the user level. > Milton, sorry if I misunderstand you: do you mean that only users have the right to filter/block access? Or do you also envision some complementary role that should be done by other stakeholders? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From ca at rits.org.br Wed Sep 26 13:26:54 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:26:54 -0300 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46F9B8B7.5090407@cavebear.com> 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> <46F9B8B7.5090407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <46FA965E.5080008@rits.org.br> I dream of a day the Internet will be far more advanced and the current paradigm of domain names will be just history (and not a nice one, as we see from the unending debates and the monies involved). A dream hard to become reality since the USA decided to create the market for domain names -- and of course it quickly became the realm of a quasi-monopoly which feeds the entity governing the logical infrastructure. So we will have to find ways acceptable to all (or most -- how to measure this?) to minimize the problems without violating basic individual rights. A big, big challenge... --c.a. Karl Auerbach wrote: > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> Milton, the position you are pushing is that anyone should be free to >> get a domain such as ".abortion" (your example) or ".childpornography" >> or dot-whatever-blasphemy, and if there are countries of the world >> that are unhappy about that, they should censor these domains or break >> out of the global Internet. > > I don't know for a fact that that is what Milton was suggesting. > > But it is certainly what I feel is not merely appropriate, it is necessary. > > We will destroy the internet if we reduce the internet to the thin > residual that is left after removing every pieces that is offensive to > someone, somewhere. > > Why shouldn't there be TLD for .abortion? > > Does one think that if we don't have a TLD that the abortions will go away? > > What about people who engage in extreme puppy fumping, are they to be > denied the .puppyfumpers TLD because some bitty in Tomania (from > Chaplin's movie the Great Dictator) gets his/her nose bent because they > don't like the thought of puppies being fumped? > > If someone finds work on the Sabbath or on holy days offensive should we > shut down the internet on those days? > > The idea that every conceivable burr and splinter has to be removed from > the internet else people will not interact is an idea that is > inconsistent with to the history of mankind and our oft demonstrated > human capacity to reach across borders, languages, religions, and races. > > The idea that any body of internet governance should act as a modern day > Torquemada or Savonarola is, to use an understating euphemism, > discomforting. > > It is not that this has not been tried before - in 1515 the Lateran > Council tried to require that all books obtain the approval of the > Catholic church in Rome - De impressione liborum - > http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm - (Look for the phrase "On > printing books" to find the relevant part.) > > It did not work. In fact a rather significant process of dissent was > begun a mere two years later in Wittenberg Germany. > > Sure, we ought to remove barriers that serve no purpose. But we ought > not to erect ICANN as the internet net nanny that suppresses expression > because it feels that someone might be offended. > > The price of freedom of expression is a thickened skin. > > > Moreover, if there is half of the world that is offended by such a > > visible reference to, say, abortion or blasphemies or whatever, I > > think that you have to respect that. > > Respect yes, but change my behavior to fit norms to which I do not > subscribe, no. > > There are large numbers of fundamental religious people out there, of > many religions, who not merely disagree with my lifestyle - comfortable, > California beach, liberal, progressive, humanistic, secular - who > actually want to reach out and kill me as they did to so many of my > fellow countryman a few years back in New York and Oklahoma City. > > I am not going to fit my life or expression into their strictures. > > It would be very improper indeed for a body of internet governance to > empower such forces and opinions by giving them a lever to suppress the > behavior of those who hold ideas contrary to their beliefs. > > Yet that is exactly the road that ICANN is taking - suppression or, to > use the more blunt word, "censorship". > > And its not just suppression on the basis of a conflict of beliefs; > ICANN has elevated the trademark industry to the level of a universal > church and turned trademarks into words from on high that may not be > uttered on the internet without the making of appropriate honorific > noises. Even originators of ideas and words - for example "Nike" - are > subordinated to ICANN's golden calf of trademark, > > > As for the internet being a "major factor in democratizing many > societies". I disagree. It is the desire and need of people who want > to have a voice in the bodies that govern them that is the driving > force. The communication afforded by the internet was merely a > lubricant making organization easier. Telephones and televisions have > arguably had a greater facilitating impact. > > It does seem that the internet can be as much as force of suppression as > it is of promotion of democratic principles. For example, ICANN itself, > the epitome of the internet based enterprise, retreated from democratic > elections and replaced democratic processes with something substantially > less. > > >> Incidentally, I think that there are several other important issues >> that are affected by ICANN's new gTLD process. For example, depending >> on application fees and technical requirements, the developing world >> might be deprived of the possibility of accessing this resource > > I quite agree with you. > > > Not merely the developing world, pretty much anybody who does not have > the resources to pass through ICANN's gauntlet of incumbent protective > irrelevancies. > > ICANN is proposing to continue its process of choosing TLD operators on > criteria, that were we choosing which airlines could fly, would be akin > to evaluating whether they serve Coke or Pepsi during the flight and > whether they publish the names and address of people who buy tickets > rather than evaluating whether they have safe airplanes, safely > maintained and operated. > > I have suggested a simple criteria for new TLDs - > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000324.html - that avoids all of > that nonesense and substitutes an expensive, objective, fast procedure. > > --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 > > > -- 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 Sep 26 13:58:44 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:58:44 -0400 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> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DDC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >and it is. I can filter out all emails from >, I can write a rule into my >firewall to block all my users from seeing >http://internetgovernance.org (but what would be the fun in that?) McTim: we are in agreement here, but you present it as an argument, which seems to indicate that you do not really understand what this controversy is about. That suspicion is proved by your next point: >The basic conceptual mistake you have made is to forget >that the DNS is a hierarchical, distributed system (RFCs >799, 1034, 1035, 920, 1032, etc, etc). > >Now, if you want to put 2 million names in the root zone >(instead of say for example .com), well you CAN do that, >but IMHO you SHOULD NOT. McTim, this discussion is not about how many TLDs. Not even remotely about that. It is about "which" TLDs and "how" they are selected, and whether a central authority censors their content based on semantic considerations. Care to participate in that debate? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sep 26 14:09:08 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:09:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <56DB04E5-A5F8-4C87-A1AF-85545347FB33@psg.com> 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> <46FA09E7.4020608@cavebear.com> <56DB04E5-A5F8-4C87-A1AF-85545347FB33@psg.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DDD@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> >Clark, Sollins, Wroclawski and Braden in a 2002 >paper titled "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's >Internet". their basic premise is "... one important >reality that surrounds the Internet today: different >stakeholders that are part of the Internet have >interests that may be adverse to each other, and these >parties vie to favor their particular interests." >Their emphasis in the paper was mostly architectural, >but it applies to policy as well. i think. This is so.....IETF. What you have there, Avri, is a simple statement of what any political scientist or political economist would call interest group politics. But instead of recognizing that there are, in fact, other disciplines that have relevant knowledge to contribute to our understanding of what is happening to the Internet, and seeking out how those concepts have been developed in other literatures (including other ICTs), Clark et al invent their own word and their own literature and proceed in their own insular world. All of the authors you cite are brilliant network protocol designers and internet architects, and worldly-smart in a large number of other ways, but it gets tiresome to deal with this insularity sometimes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Sep 26 14:26:09 2007 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:26:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs Message-ID: Now I have to speak up as a friend & former colleague of the besmirched Clark, Sollins, Wroclawski - Milton of course they know poltiical economy 101, folks like me and Marjorie Blumenthal spent years tutoring them. Maybe they didn't 20 years ago, but by 5 years ago they all did. Now getting them to reference anyone outside their space...well who cares. Still you'd prefer they use a more boring title like 'Interest group politics in cyberspace'? or the always handy 'Political Conflict and Cooperation in Cyberspace'? That's our job! ; ) Their point I believe was from the level of analysis required for core network protocol design the political struggle above is largely significant to note simply in that it is taking place, and it can have an impact on implementation and adoption. Who wins/who loses though ICANN or IGF or any other mechanism like it is somebody else's concern - like all of ours. So, in sum, if Avri makes a political compromise and justifies it because Clark said it is ok to recognize a tussle when it is taking place, hey that''s her choice. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> mueller at syr.edu 9/26/2007 2:09 PM >>> >Clark, Sollins, Wroclawski and Braden in a 2002 >paper titled "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow's >Internet". their basic premise is "... one important >reality that surrounds the Internet today: different >stakeholders that are part of the Internet have >interests that may be adverse to each other, and these >parties vie to favor their particular interests." >Their emphasis in the paper was mostly architectural, >but it applies to policy as well. i think. This is so.....IETF. What you have there, Avri, is a simple statement of what any political scientist or political economist would call interest group politics. But instead of recognizing that there are, in fact, other disciplines that have relevant knowledge to contribute to our understanding of what is happening to the Internet, and seeking out how those concepts have been developed in other literatures (including other ICTs), Clark et al invent their own word and their own literature and proceed in their own insular world. All of the authors you cite are brilliant network protocol designers and internet architects, and worldly-smart in a large number of other ways, but it gets tiresome to deal with this insularity sometimes. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed Sep 26 14:29:20 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:29:20 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA32E5.2090303@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> Message-ID: <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > This also applies to Karl's reply - Karl, I do respect your freedom to > live as you like, but when we move from the offline to the online world, > and speak about something at the root level of the Internet, the entire > planet is packed in the same room. Singularity is not a technical requirement of DNS. There is no need for a single DNS root. For years already there have been many such roots, most ill run and laughable, but some are professionally managed by people who really know what they are doing. First to answer McTim's question - I really don't understand the nuances of DNSSEC to know how it affects multi-rooted DNS. Back to the notion that the internet has and must have one singular, authoritative catholic root: That myth is the key to ICANN's authority, which is why ICANN so closely protects that myth. Yet is a myth, a dogma of faith, nothing more. If one watches how DNS names are resolved, I mean really look at the deep technical level, even to the degree of watching the "authoritative answer" bit, one observes that it is system of referals. So it does not matter how a bit of resolving software reaches the name server that has the target resource records, what matters is that it reached that name server. As such, as long as separate systems of roots cause a resolver to reach the same name servers then the users get the same answers. The issue here is consistency of DNS answers, not singularity of DNS roots. In other words, different communities can shape their DNS landscapes differently to meet their own values and needs. Consistency does not mean some mindless uniformity across the entire world - that road would equally require us all to speak the same language. There are those who fear that a DNS name contained in a URL will somehow resolve to two different things for two different users. That is a misplaced fear: DNS can never guarantee consistent results, even with a single root. In other words the thing that is so feared and is used as an argument against competing systems of DNS roots is a thing that is intrinsic to DNS itself and exists even with a singular DNS root. I wrote a note on the chimera of DNS as a global uniform internet name (GUIN) space - http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/nrc_presentation_july_11_2001.ppt. I found three kinds of properties that are required for a global internet name: - Universal validity or non-validity (i.e. every name that is valid must be valid everywhere and every name that is invalid must be invalid everywhere.) - Location invariance: every name must have the same meaning no matter where uttered. - Client invariance: every name must have the same meeting no matter who utters it. - Temporal invariance: Once a name obtains a meaning it must retain that same meaning for all future time. DNS does not possess these properties. Content management systems and optimizers have made short work of location and client invariance. Filters have made mincemeat of universal validity or non validity. But more importantly DNS does not possess temporal invariance - DNS names change over time, often rather quickly - and as such they are inappropriate vessels into which to put our hopes for names with unchanging meaning. All of us daily experience DNS failure of temporal invariance - we have all observed how email addresses and web URLs rot into meaningless or become handles to new, unexpected, targets. Given that DNS is already a week vehicle the goal of a single catholic root becomes rather less important because even that singular vehicle can not obtain the desired outcome of universal names. I have come to believe that we should view the DNS system as one in which there can be separate roots, each with its chosen suite of TLDs. Rational self interest will drive the operators of these roots to include in their inventory the core TLDs with which we are all familiar. However, local, aspiring, boutique TLDs will be found in some roots, not in others. This is where the competition for air and light occurs; this is where a new idea grows. And this is where communities will prune and shape their view of the internet landscape according to their own desires, values, and aspirations. As those boutique TLDs grow, or fail, they will be adopted, or not, by more root systems. And name collisions can be resolved among the competing claimants using the traditional national and international legal mechanism and systems used to resolve among multiple claimants to a trade or service mark. Users can pick and chose which root system to which they will subscribe. If they don't like the offerings of root A, they can move to root B, just as today if they don't find their favorite boutique brand of soup at supermarket A they can go to supermarket B. It is for this reason - the reason that DNS can operate with multiple roots, each with its own suite of TLDs chosen by the operator - that I do not consider DNS to be a critical internet resource that has to be managed by an overlord of names. But that simple idea, like the idea of packet switching in the 1970s, scares established institutions. And as AT&T tried to bury the Hush-a-Phone under techno-FED, established institutions try to cast the fact that DNS technology, without change, can have multiple roots, as some kind of anathema. --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 Wed Sep 26 16:43:50 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:43:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein [mailto:goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 9:38 AM >And then there's cybersquatting - to me the scourge >of the domain name business. And then there's security >for companies. If I'm selling widgets at widget.com, >yet someone tries to copy me at widgets.sdgf, and >there are hundreds of TLDs, how am I as a businessman >to easily keep track of this? It's hard enough now. David, that is the question that has kept TLDs from being added for nearly 10 years now. I will try to answer your question but with one proviso: I am surprised by the way the debate about ICANN's ability to regulate or censor semantic content in TLD strings has been digressed into a discussion of whether new TLDs are desirable or wheher there are too many of them. Whatever you think about those questions, there _are_ going to be new TLDs, probably in the 10-20 a year range. That is one unambiguous (and relatively good) outcome of the ICANN process. (Of course it took them 10 years, grumble...) It's actually easy to keep track of; there are automated services that download zone files to let you know when names that match yours have been registered. The issue has always been whether the value-add of additional name spaces exceeds the cost of defensive registrations and monitoring by existing registrants. One answer is that having a domain name by itself doesn't attract traffic or business, especially in new TLDs. (certain short, generic names in .com are another matter) So someone who registers widgets.sdgf is unlikely to take business from you unless they actively promote it and have similar products. If they encourage confusion, passing off, etc. then it is actionable as a trademark case. If they are in a completely different line of business, then it's legit. There are always going to be borderline cases. Of course, the same problems arise without any new TLDs -- someone could register wigdets.com or midgets.com (oops, Vittorio would censor that one probably). Shutting the door on all new name spaces to avoid those problems is like refusing to allow copy machines in schools because some people will use them to violate copyright. 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Sep 26 16:55:16 2007 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:55:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FA32E5.2090303@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> Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] >I am making the argument that it does not make any >practical difference for the freedom and accessibility >of the *content* whether it is located at the first or >at the second identifier. Michael Froomkin has addressed this. But to the extent that is true, there will be few requests for new TLDs. Still no case for censorship of them. >(and yes, TLD requests are clearly provocative, SLD requests would be just as provocative if we created centralized power over them, and created politicized committees to decide who gets them. That is exactly my point. Keep the core neutral. Don't even allow ICANN to go there. >instead, you insist on a request that it is not >offensive for you, and is not offensive for me, >but is offensive to many; and since it does not >bring any perceivable advance to your freedom, Any concession to the principle that speech can be prohibited merely on the basis of it being offensive to a few people, or even the majority of people, is a huge blow to freedom. I don't mind if you disagree with that. I just don't understand why you want to position yourself as a "rights" advocate. You're not a free expression rights advocate. You're a compromiser seeking safety in expedient repression. >these people may even think that you are >purposedly trying to offend them and their >deep moral (religious, in some cases) convictions. By this logic, Salman Rushdie's book should have been banned. Agree? I don't see how you can escape that conclusion. And note how once we realy get into the discussion the whole false distinction between names and content disappears. People who think I am trying to offend their deep moral convictions couldn't care less about wherher we are talking about names, content, second level or third level. They want it banned. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From karl at cavebear.com Wed Sep 26 17:07:14 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:07:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <501320.29378.qm@web54105.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46FACA02.8070002@cavebear.com> Milton L Mueller wrote: > ... Whatever you think about those questions, there _are_ > going to be new TLDs, probably in the 10-20 a year range. That is one > unambiguous (and relatively good) outcome of the ICANN process. (Of > course it took them 10 years, grumble...) 10-20 is a lot better than zero, but there is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever that the numbers could not have two or three more zeros, i.e. 1000 to 20000 per year. ICANN, even with its "new" TLD process insists on imposing social and economic policies, protective of incumbent registries and the intellectual property protection industry, onto a process that ought to be a simple checklist that asks whether the applicant will abide by broadly accepted and practiced written internet technical standards. If the answer is yes, the green light ought to automatically go on and the application be entered into the queue, lottery, or auction process to chose among the unfulfilled applications. The price for this: I figure that $0.05 to $5 would be the appropriate range to submit the application and have it reviewed. The cost to the winner of the lottery or auction ought to be a fee to cover the cost of putting the data into the root zone file, which using .com registry costs as a base, should be a number under $7 (US). The auction price would, of course, be set via bidding. --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 Wed Sep 26 17:17:44 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:17:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DDC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DDC@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MIlton, On 9/26/07, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > McTim, this discussion is not about how many TLDs. Not even remotely > about that. It is about "which" TLDs and "how" they are selected, and > whether a central authority censors their content based on semantic > considerations. > > Care to participate in that debate? Well, using the logic of my previous argument, if I did care to participate in THAT debate, I would do it on a GNSO list. Since I'm not subbed to any of those lists, the answer is clear, BUT.... > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org Since I AM subbed to this list, I offered my 200 Shillingi here. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Sep 26 18:27:26 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: sympa.1190805895.79076.595@lists.cpsr.org Message-ID: Referance Link update: 2007 LA Times Festival of Books http://www.latimes.com/extras/festivalofbooks/ 2007 SCHEDULE OF PANEL AND SPEAKER SESSIONS � Panel Schedule for Saturday, April 28th 2007 http://www.latimes.com/extras/festivalofbooks/program_panels_sat.html - Age of Spin Panel Ackerman Grand Ballroom Description: The Age of Spin: Controlling the Message >From the LA Times Festival of Books, a panel on political spin Featuring: Moderator: Mr. John Powers Mr. Joe Conason Mr. David Goodman Mr. Michael Isikoff Mr. Frank Luntz ------->Watch Real Player Link: http://12.170.145.164/ram/feature/0507/btv051307_4b.ram Real Player File Download: rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/arc_btv/btv051307_4b.rm rtsp://video.c-span.org:554/archive/arc_btv/btv051307_4b.rm ------------------------------------------------------- Just to make the point again, a soundbite from a 1976 movie called 'Network' [P.S.: Close your office door and crank-it-up as load as your can stand, to get the full impact of this message] http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/newmoviespeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.m p3 Ref: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork4.html -- End ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Sep 26 20:15:02 2007 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:15:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8FD577C0-6F23-4EB3-AD95-B621C46BD76C@psg.com> On 27 sep 2007, at 00.27, yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > Just to make the point again, > a soundbite from a 1976 movie called 'Network' complete and utter nonsense 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 dan at musicunbound.com Wed Sep 26 21:29:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:29:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <8FD577C0-6F23-4EB3-AD95-B621C46BD76C@psg.com> References: <8FD577C0-6F23-4EB3-AD95-B621C46BD76C@psg.com> Message-ID: At 2:15 AM +0200 9/27/07, Avri Doria wrote: >On 27 sep 2007, at 00.27, >yehudakatz at mailinator.com wrote: > >>Just to make the point again, >> >>a soundbite from a 1976 movie called 'Network' >> > > >complete and utter nonsense Yeah, here's the response, from the same movie: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork2.html :-) Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From dan at musicunbound.com Wed Sep 26 22:39:01 2007 From: dan at musicunbound.com (Dan Krimm) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 19:39:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46F96DAF.1070609@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> Message-ID: Sorry for the delayed reply and for starting "back at the beginning" but I've been otherwise engaged for the last couple days and there are some points here that I think may be getting lost. We covered some of this ground on the Keep The Core Neutral web site, but it's worth pulling some of that into context in this discussion. (1) This is an inherently political issue and discussion, because it has to do with strong power to control expression. You can't get away from the politics; it forms the very foundation of the issue in the first place. And these politics of expression are *very* important in an Information Society. There may be *nothing* more important to sustaining the dynamics of a democratic system of governance than ensuring open platforms of communication. (2) So, given that this is about political control, the question is: "Who or what should have the authority to control expression on the Internet?" (It starts with the expressive characteristics of gTLDs in this case, but potentially expanding to anything of an expressive nature that the controller-venue might eventually have authority to govern.) The thing about control of expression is that the more centralized it is the more it looks like censorship, while the more distributed it is (toward the edges) the more it looks like freedom. It's not that control is being amplified or attenuated, it's just that control is being moved around, between concentrated or disbursed configurations of controllers. (3) Who are "we" to make this decision, of behalf of the whole world? Are we accountable to the citizens of the world (and if so, how)? Does having a "multi-stakeholder" process automatically make it "accountable"? (I don't see how this could possibly work, thus I am dubious of the possibility in the first place.) It sounds more like Plato's "philosopher kings" and frankly I'm not in a mood to construct any sort of monarchy-driven governance system, even a "collegial" or supposedly "enlightened" one. It's not democratic. It seems presumptuous at the very least to suggest that any combination of supporting/advisory organizations and administrative staff could create a governance system for this sort of powerful control issue that is going to yield a wise and fair outcome for the entire globe at once. Why should ICANN be the venue to make such decisions? What ICANN does in the case of rejecting a gTLD application cannot be undone (without completely discarding and ignoring ICANN's authority altogether and coordinating around an alternative institutional structure), but if ICANN chooses not to reject applications that pose no technical/operational problem, others remain free to do so if they must. This is not a symmetrical situation, and by refusing to reject gTLD applications on the basis of non-technical/operational criteria ICANN would not impose anything on anyone. We are "packed together in the same room" but it's a big enough room that we need not listen to everyone in the room, even so. We do have tools to decide whom to listen to and whom to ignore. If the price of getting democracy "in under the radar" in non-democratic nations is self-censorship on a global scale, then I think the price is far too high. The simple fact is that no matter how long a democratizing effect remains under the radar, at some point the authoritarian government will wake up and at that time there is no problem at all imposing non-democratic features on the network. Buying a bit of time at the outset is not a defining step -- it is as easily undone as the "dumb-pipe" architecture of TCP/IP. It is as vulnerable to being undermined as Netscape was vulnerable to Microsoft when M$FT finally woke up and realized that Navigator was "democratizing" its concentrated OS market power by threatening a middleware escape pathway. (4) As for drawing lines, sure, everyone has places where they would draw lines. And if I can control what information I choose to be able to view, I can exercise that control without having to reach consensus with anyone else. And if freedom of expression is abused, one of the best ways to remedy the situation to to engage in corrective expression. There is no way we will ever achieve perfection in terms of a global consensus on these issues. Not even in the long run -- that pipe dream is utterly utopian. We will have to contend with cultural disagreement literally until there is only one sentient being left in the universe. So, I don't want ICANN to play God here. The least of evils of authorities that we have constructed at this period in the evolution of civilization are embodied by national representative governments and international treaties, flawed as they are as of yet. Even though our current US administration has forgotten the point, what we are aiming for is the 'rule of law' instead of the 'rule of humans'. The problem with ICANN doing the ruling is that there is no accountable rule of law available to ICANN given its currently structure as determined in its bylaws, so inevitably it must amount to the rule of humans in the end, even if it is some collective of humans. In the end it's just a big self-congratulatory elite, not a genuine legal/judicial/enforcement system with structural accountability to more than wealthy powers that would be called "lobbyists" in any truly representative system. These are really hard questions to resolve in the political arena, and ICANN has no silver bullet to do what societies have struggled with for generations upon generations. The fact is that the struggle will continue, and we have to design a system that allows the struggle to be engaged in governance venues that are as accountable as possible to the full citizenry. ICANN simply is not a contender for such a system, in principle. And while I admire the persistent determination of people such as Avri who are not ready to give up looking for something better (keep tweaking the system as it stands...), when it comes to deeply political issues that are so profoundly incapable of being resolved in a consensus process, I cannot envision ICANN ever providing the right kind of process to deal with these issues. The only thing that makes sense for ICANN is to stick to the things it *can* address productively, and leave the impossible "wicked" problems to explicitly and consciously political venues to continue the endless struggle. If there is progress to be made in ICANN's governance processes, it is in defining sensible (i.e., narrower) boundaries and constraints on what sorts of policy matters it will address at all. There are some social problems that simply have no fair and just and equitable global consensus solutions, and you can't mandate them out of thin air. Such an ultimately fiat-based mandate is simply authoritarian oppression by another name. When it comes to democracy fighting authoritarianism, you can't fight fire with fire. You have to pour water on the flames or otherwise remove the ambient oxygen supply. All ICANN has is the petroleum of an inevitably skewed "multi-stakeholder" structure to pour on the fire of general political contests, because the clear water of genuinely representative democratic accountability is nowhere to be seen and cannot be tacked on as an after-thought. Dan ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 27 00:07:36 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:07:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: 8FD577C0-6F23-4EB3-AD95-B621C46BD76C@psg.com Message-ID: Thank You Avri & Dan Exactly! You got the point. Some people � with their lives all balled up into the Wall Street Madison Avenue Domain Name Game want to Corner-the-Market, or a least a very profitable share of it. The parallel between Arthur Jensen�s Pitch to Howard Beale and the Who�s-Who of the GNSO Registrars Constituency, is close enough for me. I�m not saying they�re all behaving like Arthur Jensen (Network) or Charles Foster Kane (Citizen Kane), I am saying that there are members of the Registrars Constituency that are backed by the Financial Market, and that the Constituency have proven that are perfectly capable of: Commoditizing, Monetizing and Controlling the TLD systems. And if you release the gTLD you can expect the same damn thing of them (status-quo). And there are plently of other "Stakeholders" that have the same wish. I won�t buy the fact that the TLD syndicate has not been a Cash-Cow for them. And don�t you think for one moment, that you could convince me they won�t try to: refine, saturate, and expand their holdings in it. Hell-Yes they want to open up the gTLD right now, because � They (the Registrars Constituency), The Networks, and the Carriers are the only ones that can afford to monopolize it. The Time is Now, because the coming �technological-convergence� is just around the corner, and that will squeeze out any loose ends. Its time for us to 'Defend Democratic Web Space', otherwise well have a world of Arthur Jensen�s hyper-centric-syndicates, Ruling the Net. You might think that it�s Hog-wash, but from what we have seen in past 10 years, there�s no-way I can let democracy side down the tubes. Y --- Dan, My retort: "Network" (1976) Howard Beale - The 'Mad Prophet of the Airwaves' http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork3.html Videobite: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/videoclips/videomoviespeechnetworkmadprophet544 444444444444444443484.wmv Soundbite: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/newmoviespeeches/moviespeechnetwork3a3 45854545455443843.mp3 --- P.S. Side Bar: Avri, congratulations your appointment, and thank you for your work & support in forums as this. Y ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From drake at hei.unige.ch Thu Sep 27 05:07:28 2007 From: drake at hei.unige.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:07:28 +0200 Subject: SV: [governance] space on Nov.11th In-Reply-To: <0JOZ00CIR31WRWH0@victor.unige.ch> Message-ID: On 9/26/07 1:10 PM, "Parminder" wrote: > > But wouldn't 11th 5 or 530 PM be ideal, when we have more time and space. We > can try to make pre IGF afternoon/ evening as a regular IGC annual meeting > to catch the maximum possible numbers - without the hustle and bustle of an > ongoing IGF. I doubt that Giga will conclude its business meeting in just 75 minutes by 5pm, there will be a lot of agenda items to cover, and last year's session with fewer items took longer than that. Plus some people may need a wee break before heading off for another two hour session. So I would suggest either a) starting at 5:30 and expecting a number of us to show up late, or b) starting at 6. Either way, it's good that Carlos has booked a separate room for this, will avoid excess complications. On 9/25/07 3:52 PM, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > I hope the Giganet (soon to become Teranet and then Exanet :)) people > understand the only reason we are trying to do this on the 11th is that > most people will be arriving between the 10th and the 11th, not earlier, > and the only day available would be the 11th. Of course, and we're going to have to deal with this at every IGF going forward. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Sep 27 05:25:30 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:55:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <20070925201123.27B3EE2277@smtp3.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20070927092538.B51CFA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net> I am primarily responding to the question that has been discussed briefly in this thread of whether conception, articulation and adoption of new sets of rights are at all needed for the Internet, and, more generally, for the techno-social phenomenon of an emerging information society. Robert, Milton and Vittorio have expressed some views on this.... It is wrong to dismiss a rights discourse - by asserting that we don't need new 'rights' and that they may create more problems - without inspecting the basic significance of 'rights', why and when new rights get instituted, and whether present circumstances require such an exercise. Rights constitute an important element of defining the relationship between individuals and social institutions, and thus are one of the key principles of societal organization. There can be other principles - like market based exchanges, and all these principles together shape our societies, and thus are important inputs into a policy discourse like the one conducted on this list. Information society term implies far reaching structural changes to our societal institutions - which are taking place right now in front of our eyes, and the Internet is the central techno-social paradigm driving these changes. Existing statements of rights are framed in terms of social reality experienced by their framers. Most of these still hold true today as they did when they were formulated. But greater emphasis on some issues may be required, while some entirely new areas requiring a rights-based approach may come up. Robert, I know you work a lot in the area of privacy, do you think that the extent and nature of threat to privacy is adequately covered by existing HR instruments? Much of the current evolution of rights discourse is taking place in developing countries. UNDP has increasingly been casting its polices and practices in the area of development in terms of what it calls as a rights-based approach. The few rights based initiatives in terms of the Internet and the IS that have originated in the North have ignored these new areas of 'rights', and thus lack global legitimacy. A 'right to communicate' and 'communications rights' have been some areas of evolution of rights in areas in which the Internet has strong and direct impact. Sen's 'capability rights' approach has strong implication in ICTD area (IT for Change is working on applying this approach to ICTD and ICT policy - in how ICTs expand capabilities and freedoms, as education does, in making possible new choices of 'being' and 'doing', and therefore how ICTs may need to seen from a rights perspective, and the policy implications thereof). And this discourse of rights is not merely academic; proceeding on what aspects of the Internet and ICTs are seen from a rights-perspective gives us the ground for shaping appropriate Internet and IS polices - which are an expression of societal goals and chosen means to reach them. To not employ a rights framework for developing global and sub-global Internet polices may be wrong to say the least, and possibly ideologically-biased. On the question raised by Milton that since governments regularly violate existing HR guarantees there is no practical sense in writing more HR text - well, this comes from an environ where a high degree of HR protection is taken for guaranteed, in other places peoples' struggles still see international and national HR docs are key allies in their fights, and these often have great practical value. 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: Erick Iriarte Ahon [mailto:faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:36 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Dan Krimm > Cc: graham at lobo-graham.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's > progress .. wishing for it to succeed. > > Hi > > In 2001, James Graham proposed the creation of "Group for the > Internationalization of Cyberspace (GIC)" > [The Internationalization of Cyberspace for a Legal E-Qual World: A > Latin American Initiative] > > He said: "The present initiative aims to resolve most of the actual > legal problems that are discussed on national and international > level. Internet being transnational by its nature, regulators do > accord that there is a real need for some international legislation. > However, their will of protection of sovereignty does not permit > today to find a global solution. Although, some treaties have been > achieved (e.g. the Cybercrime Treaty of the European Council) or will > be achieved (e.g. the Jurisdiction Convention of the Conference of > the Hague), no international organization does treat Internet and its > issues as a whole. Beneath specific topics like e-signatures or > cybercrimes, there are other issues like the digital divide and the > respect of fundamental freedoms.". > > You can find the proposal and Project in: > http://www.alfa-redi.com/gic/ > > Six years ago, and for some reason, the document only appear in some > articles in LAC (i think the same reason that have only a few LAC > organizations in another proposals). > > Maybe you can use the proposal for the discuss. > > Erick Iriarte Ahon > > > > At 01:50 p.m. 25/09/2007, Dan Krimm wrote: > >At 11:07 AM -0700 9/25/07, Bret Fausett wrote: > > >Words don't achieve power by the number of their authors but by the > > >righteousness of their meaning. John Perry Barlow's Declaration of > > >Independence for Cyberspace and the Cluetrain Manifesto are but two > > >examples of similar documents, drafted by a few and adopted by many. > > > > > >I agree with Robert, though, that if you want these powerful words to > have > >a tangible effect in the world of political power one must organize > >politically and mobilize a broad constituency to talk about the ideas and > >ultimately push for their adoption in law. > > > >Words may inspire people from the top down but political power is > >ultimately expressed from the bottom up and must be instantiated in > >legislation, regulation and judiciary enforcement in order to take effect > >tangibly in a society, especially in areas where markets alone simply > >cannot suffice. > > > >It's the "adopted by many" part that requires more than just the words. > >The point here is to get public policy to reflect this agenda, and in > fact > >the Barlow Declaration and Cluetrain are not consistently expressed in > >terms of law at this time. > > > >This is a persistent disconnect in the policy dynamics of the tech > >community. Silicon Valley and The Beltway still view each other mostly > >with apprehension (in the US, and I believe this dynamic extends > >internationally as well). This is a systemic problem of communities that > >are not currently engaged in a meaningful exchange of ideas, and I think > it > >can (and therefore should) be improved. > > > >Those in the tech community who believe that invention and rhetoric and > >markets alone (should I add "consensus processes"?) can solve problems of > >political power are fooling themselves. And have no doubt that politics > >are *intimately* and *fundamentally* involved in ICT policies by now, > here > >in the Information Society. > > > >Politics are not mocked. :-) > > > >Dan > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 27 05:28:10 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:28:10 +1000 Subject: [governance] Meanwhile, back at Our Space In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <011101c800e8$c14e83a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info Banned from most media in many countries, tobacco giants are having a great time advertising on the Internet via YouTube etc and appealing to young audiences without any mechanisms to control their access to the fastest growing media form for young audiences. Any thoughts on this as an emerging issue? Should advertising on the Net have some standards? At the same time, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the telco giants who control so much of Internet access now are much more attracted to the mobile business model - pay per minute, and pay per content source. Now how do we apply that to the Internet, they ponder. And how soon will they succeed given their economic power and ability to influence regulators? Or aren't these the sort of issues that internet governance should consider? Ian Peter No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 25/09/2007 08:02 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 27 05:51:17 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:51:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meanwhile, back at Our Space In-Reply-To: <011101c800e8$c14e83a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> (ian.peter@ianpeter.com) References: <011101c800e8$c14e83a0$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20070927095117.93AC5220007@quill.bollow.ch> Ian Peter wrote: > At the same time, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the telco giants > who control so much of Internet access now are much more attracted to the > mobile business model - pay per minute, and pay per content source. Now how > do we apply that to the Internet, they ponder. And how soon will they > succeed given their economic power and ability to influence regulators? > > Or aren't these the sort of issues that internet governance should consider? I think that creating effective protections against this kind of attack on the freedom of the internet should be considered _the_ most important internet governance topic _if_ there is a real danger that such attacks could otherwise succeed. How serious is this threat? 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 Thu Sep 27 06:14:07 2007 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:44:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <46F967EB.1050502@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <20070927101414.7500DE2713@smtp3.electricembers.net> > Personally, I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we > should be aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed at > the IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the coalitions. Vittorio I have always looked forward to the imminent convergence between the work of the dynamic coalition (DC) on 'internet bill of rights' and that of 'framework of principles for the Internet'. From my (only my, and not of the DC) perspective there are two areas in which these two initiatives need to bridge some degree of difference (or at least difference of emphasis) (1) The importance given to positive rights, and the ongoing evolution of discourse on rights in various areas on development, in developing countries. (Milton, an important partner in the 'framework of principles for the Internet' DC, may not greatly agree to this :) but these are matters of internal differences) (2) this second point explains why we use phrase 'principles for the Internet' and not just the term 'rights' - the language of rights takes a individual- centered view, of what individuals are able to or not able to do. This conception relates to the term 'agency' used in development discourse. But development theory shows how structural issues -limiting or providing opportunity for individual agency - are as important. We understand Internet not only as a site for individual freedoms and agency, but also as an 'element of architecture' of new social systems and structures. While it is important that Internet policies shape the future development of the internet in a manner that it directly enables greater rather than lesser individual freedoms and agency, it is as important that the new social structures shaped by the Internet, and allied techno-social processes, are built in a manner that individual freedoms and well-being are enhanced. An example of such new structures can be - new health, education, or governance systems build using ICTs. These new systems can either enhance or diminish individual freedom and well-being. And it is misplaced techno-fascination to think that ICT based systems will necessarily improve individual freedoms and well being. Therefore, in times of such far-reaching techno-induced structural changes it is not only the individual-focused issues of relevant rights that are important, but also the structural/institutional-focused issues of 'structural principles' of development of the Internet, and thereby of the information society structures and institutions. (I think, the above leaves no doubt that both address the same issues of individual freedoms, choices, well-being and agency, and appropriate social structures are only the means for, and do not stand opposed to, individual-centred concerns.) That is why a 'framework of (structural or policy) principles for the Internet' is as important in these times of deep structural changes, as a framework of rights. Hopefully, a combined framework of 'rights and principles for the Internet' can be evolved. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change, Bangalore Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890 Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055 www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu] > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 1:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Robert Guerra > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's > progress .. wishing for it to succeed. > > Thanks, this is a valuable contribution. > > Robert Guerra ha scritto: > > first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest one be > > created so that scholars and human rights professionals can come > > together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal > > Yes, there's a coalition website at > http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org, a mailing list at > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights, and also a > conference website at http://www.dfiritaly2007.it/ . > > > In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet > > bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There is > > great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave - it > > has to really be the work of an active international coalition and not > > just one person or one country. > > Sure, but someone has to start, and I think this is a problem for all > dynamic coalitions; at least in terms of mailing list messages, apart > from the Privacy one, the others seem to have activity levels that are > similar to or even less than that of the Bill of Rights DC. > > Personally, I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we > should be aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed at > the IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the coalitions. > There already are too manyv high level documents, and not enough > practical respect for human rights, or clarity about "down to earth" > principles that any blogger and any webmaster can apply. The BoR > coalition should thus discuss the conceptual and formal framework to get > to several declarations of rights, all deriving from the fundamental > statements of human rights, and all coming to a level which is clear, > applicable and enforceable. > > On the other hand, this is for what I know the first attempt to a really > multistakeholder approach to this discussion. In the past, the techies > released their edicts, some NGOs did their own, and some governments > also did the same. What we need is to understand how to put all of this > together. > -- > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Sep 27 06:29:46 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:29:46 +1000 Subject: [governance] Meanwhile, back at Our Space In-Reply-To: <20070927095117.93AC5220007@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <000001c800f1$5bab9930$8b00a8c0@IAN> Serious enough I think Norbert, and I'm sure others can give some good evidence here. The simple fact is that the mobile business model is a good one for telcos, and the Internet model has much lower margins (can't charge premium content or by the minute). So given the imperative to greater shareholder returns the best return for shareholders comes from expansion of the mobile model. Nothing technically stops all internet services being delivered by this model - so it's a pure economic argument for higher shareholder returns. Telcos have been preparing the groundwork on this for some time and there are numerous statements arguing the need for premium content. The mobile model makes economic sense for telcos. If regulators don't see a principle or reason for preservation of net values (net neutrality has been a part of this debate) it wont be hard to morph the Internet into something entirely different. I think the threat is real enough. People like Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee have thought it serious enough to speak out. But it doesn't seem to rate in internet governance forums. Recent court decisions in USA which were not supportive of net neutrality seem to indicate a growing trend in this direction. Add to this the capacity to "create" the new safe for kids internet, the secure internet etc and charge a premium for it. Solve all the Internet's talked about problems and make big bucks in the process. Oh, the net will survive if this happens. It will just lose its impact and customer share as a media form over time. Innovation and major applications will move elsewhere. That is, unless something in internet governance and what we do creates a compelling argument for protection of some of the basic features that make the Internet what it is today in order to maintain the social benefits which flow from the current model. And unless some more specific and directed effort is devoted to addressing the major problems the current net has. Ian Peter PS on the other issue I raised, check www.smoking-models.com and tell me the tobacco companies don't support that! -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: 27 September 2007 19:51 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Meanwhile, back at Our Space Ian Peter wrote: > At the same time, it's becoming increasingly obvious that the telco giants > who control so much of Internet access now are much more attracted to the > mobile business model - pay per minute, and pay per content source. Now how > do we apply that to the Internet, they ponder. And how soon will they > succeed given their economic power and ability to influence regulators? > > Or aren't these the sort of issues that internet governance should consider? I think that creating effective protections against this kind of attack on the freedom of the internet should be considered _the_ most important internet governance topic _if_ there is a real danger that such attacks could otherwise succeed. How serious is this threat? Greetings, Norbert. -- Norbert Bollow http://Norbert.ch President of the Swiss Internet User Group SIUG http://SIUG.ch Working on establishing a non-corrupt and truly /open/ international standards organization http://OpenISO.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 25/09/2007 08:02 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 25/09/2007 08:02 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From nb at bollow.ch Thu Sep 27 08:19:02 2007 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:19:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Meanwhile, back at Our Space In-Reply-To: <000001c800f1$5bab9930$8b00a8c0@IAN> (ian.peter@ianpeter.com) References: <000001c800f1$5bab9930$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <20070927121902.58C90220007@quill.bollow.ch> Ian Peter wrote: > The simple fact is that the mobile business model is a good one for telcos, > and the Internet model has much lower margins (can't charge premium content > or by the minute). So given the imperative to greater shareholder returns > the best return for shareholders comes from expansion of the mobile model. > > Nothing technically stops all internet services being delivered by this > model - so it's a pure economic argument for higher shareholder returns. > Telcos have been preparing the groundwork on this for some time and there > are numerous statements arguing the need for premium content. > > The mobile model makes economic sense for telcos. If regulators don't see a > principle or reason for preservation of net values (net neutrality has been > a part of this debate) it wont be hard to morph the Internet into something > entirely different. In view of the very strong market forces pushing for flatrate internet access, I think that I'm not likely to take that "it won't be hard" statement seriously unless you present a convincing argument why there are no market forces that would prevent the expansion of the "mobile" business model to 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 narten at us.ibm.com Thu Sep 27 11:38:01 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:38:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> 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> <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Karl Auerbach writes: > There is no need for a single DNS root. For years already there have > been many such roots, most ill run and laughable, but some are > professionally managed by people who really know what they are > doing. It seems to be you are intentionally confusing two distinct issues. Global uniqueness of the namespace (i.e., everyone sees the same namespace, no matter where they are) vs. the implementation technology that is used to provide the actual mapping of names to addresses (or whatever). The DNS system is the latter. Sure, I can imagine alternate implementations that don't have the same "root" structure at the top level, but that doesn't change the need for having a way of authoritatively deciding who (when there are conflicts) gets to own the mapping for a given name (e.g., all the names rooted within a given TLD). It is the namespace that needs global uniqueness, and it is _there_ that the issue comes up there needing to be a "root", that effectively "decides" which of possible conficting possibilities (read: different, inconsistent versions of the same TLD) is the one that _all_ users see. Without some arbitration, you get inconsistency, which IMO, is a bad thing. You then go on and describe issues with the DNS system that make it a less than perfect system, and use that to justify the lack of a need for a root at all. That's nonsense. > Users can pick and chose which root system to which they will > subscribe. This is the crux of the problem with multiple roots (or more generally, a fractured namespace). The vast majority of users will not want to have to select/configure which name space they are using. They want to use the same one _everyone_ else uses, so that any names they use (or share with another user) work the same everywhere. > If they don't like the offerings of root A, they can move to root B, > just as today if they don't find their favorite boutique brand of soup > at supermarket A they can go to supermarket B. Here's a more apt analogy: Who needs to have one system of telephone numbers? Why not let users decide which of (competing) phone number systems they will use? Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Sep 27 13:03:19 2007 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:03:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Human rights and new gTLDs, Todays Prime Example Message-ID: AS Howard Beal said: "Because less-than 15% of you, read News Papers" http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechnetwork3.html I'll post this for your 'Convenient Consumption.' Maybe this should have been cataloged under the .abortion gTLD. Susan Crawford, had some things to say in 'THE NEW YORK TIMES' today: �This is right at the heart of the problem,� said Susan Crawford - Todays Prime Example: - * Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Messages * The New York Times By ADAM LIPTAK September 27, 2007 Ref.: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&ref=technolo gy&oref=slogin Print: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/27cnd-verizon.html?_r=1&ref=technolo gy&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin -- Saying it had the right to block �controversial or unsavory� text messages, Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon�s mobile network available for a text-message program. But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake. �The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,� Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement. �It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,� Mr. Nelson said. �That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.� Mr. Nelson noted that text messaging is �harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics� and said Verizon has �great respect for this free flow of ideas.� The other leading wireless carriers had accepted the Naral program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code. Text messaging is a growing political tool in the United States and a dominant one abroad, and such sign-up programs are used by many political candidates and advocacy groups to send updates to supporters. But legal experts said private companies like Verizon probably have the legal right to decide which messages to carry. The laws that forbid common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. In reversing course today, Verizon did not disclaim the power to block messages it deemed inappropriate. The dispute over the Naral messages was a skirmish in the larger battle over the question of �net neutrality� � whether carriers or Internet service providers should have a voice in the content they provide to customers. �This is right at the heart of the problem,� said Susan Crawford, a visiting professor at the University of Michigan law school, referring to the treatment of text messages. �The fact that wireless companies can choose to discriminate is very troubling.� In initially turning down the program, Verizon, one of the nation�s two largest wireless carriers, had told Naral that it does not accept programs from any group �that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users.� Naral provided copies of its communications with Verizon to The New York Times. Nancy Keenan, Naral�s president, said Verizon�s initial decision interfered with political speech and activism. �No company should be allowed to censor the message we want to send to people who have asked us to send it to them,� Ms. Keenan said. �Regardless of people�s political views, Verizon customers should decide what action to take on their phones. Why does Verizon get to make that choice for them?� On Wednesday, Mr. Nelson, the Verizon spokesman, said the initial decision had turned on the subject matter of the messages and not on Naral�s position on abortion. �Our internal policy is in fact neutral on the position,� Mr. Nelson said. �It is the topic itself� � abortion � �that has been on our list.� Naral provided an example of a recent text message that it has sent to supporters: �End Bush�s global gag rule against birth control for world�s poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice.� Messages urging political action are generally thought to be at the heart of what the First Amendment protects. But the First Amendment limits government power, not that of private companies like Verizon. In rejecting the Naral program, Verizon appeared to be acting against its economic interests. It would have received a small fee to set up the program and additional fees for messages sent and received. Text messaging programs based on five- and six-digit short codes are a popular way to receive updates on news, sports, weather and entertainment. Several of the leading Democratic presidential candidates have used them, as have the Republican National Committee, Save Darfur and Amnesty International. Most of the candidates and advocacy groups that use text message programs are liberal, which may reflect the demographics of the technology�s users and developers. A spokeswoman for the National Right to Life Committee, which is in some ways Naral�s anti-abortion counterpart, said, for instance, that it has not dabbled in text messaging. Texting has proved to be an extraordinarily effective political tool. According to a study released this month by researchers at Princeton and the University of Michigan, young people who received text messages reminding them to vote in November 2006 were more likely to go to the polls. The cost per vote generated, the study said, was much smaller than other sorts of get-out-the-vote efforts. Around the world, the phenomenon is even bigger. �Even as dramatic as the adoption of text messaging for political communication has been in the United States, we�ve been quite slow compared to the rest of the world,� said James E. Katz, the director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University. �It�s important in political campaigns and political protests, and it has affected the outcomes of elections.� Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to find analogies to Verizon�s decision abroad. �Another entity that controls mass text messages is the Chinese government,� Professor Wu said. Jed Alpert, the chief executive officer of Mobile Commons, which says it is the largest provider of mobile services to political and advocacy groups, including Naral, said he had never seen a decision like Verizon�s. �This is something we haven�t encountered before, that is very surprising and that we�re concerned about,� Mr. Alpert said. Professor Wu pointed to a historical analogy. In the 19th century, he said, Western Union, the telegraph company, engaged in discrimination, based on the political views of people who sought to send telegrams. �One of the eventual reactions was the common carrier rule,� Professor Wu said, which required telegraph and then phone companies to accept communications from all speakers on all topics. Some scholars said such a rule was not needed for text messages because market competition was sufficient to ensure robust political debate. �Instead of having the government get in the game of regulating who can carry what, I would get in the game of promoting as many options as possible,� said Christopher S. Yoo, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. �You might find text-messaging companies competing on their openness policies.� -- 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 karl at cavebear.com Thu Sep 27 13:29:13 2007 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:29:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> 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> <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: <46FBE869.8020709@cavebear.com> Thomas Narten wrote: > Karl Auerbach writes: > >> There is no need for a single DNS root. For years already there have >> been many such roots, most ill run and laughable, but some are >> professionally managed by people who really know what they are >> doing. > > It seems to be you are intentionally confusing two distinct > issues. Global uniqueness of the namespace (i.e., everyone sees the > same namespace, no matter where they are) vs. the implementation > technology that is used to provide the actual mapping of names to > addresses Not quite. I was raising the distinction between the belief that DNS must be singular, with exactly one root, and the fact that what we as users want is consistency. As I pointed out DNS (modulo the impact of DNSSEC) can be, and is in practice, multi-rooted. The idea that DNS names have the property of being globally unique is, as I discussed, untrue. DNS names have too many forms of variance, particularly temporal variance, to be considered globally unique even over relatively short periods of time. In addition, there is no force of governance whatsoever that prevents a community, a nation, an individual from setting up its own DNS mechanism. The end-to-end principle is all about permitting things like this to occur. And we should not forget that sometimes people do want to be insular. There is a small town, north of San Francisco, in which the residents invented a unique language, Boontling, for the purpose of not talking to tourists and outsiders - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boontling There seems to be an odd belief that there must be an overlord of names to enforce the not-obtainable "global uniformity". Yet, throughout human history we have lived with local assignments; we have created in our human processes the necessary collision resolution and translation mechanisms. And as Shakespeare noted, no matter what name we use, a rose remains a rose. The mechanisms that allow us to handle our linguistic and regional naming conflicts also exist to resolve conflicts that arise should two domain names or TLDs come into conflict. In the case of TLDs, the most appropriate mechanism is the system of laws and treaties that allow the rise and enforcement of worldwide trade and service marks. There is no need to create any new institutions; what we have works well enough; it ain't broken, it does not need fixing, it merely needs to be used. >> Users can pick and chose which root system to which they will >> subscribe. > > This is the crux of the problem with multiple roots (or more > generally, a fractured namespace). You are assuming that competing roots necessarily cause a "fractured namespace". That is not the case. And I sense that you consider "fractured" to be a negative characteristic when, in fact, it may actually be the key to solving one aspect of internet governance. The issue is not singularity of roots but is instead consistency of namespaces. Competing roots can perfectly well have consistent name spaces; Indeed in practice virtually all are consistent with the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign root zone. Competing roots do not necessarily lead to name dissonance. And in practice they rarely do. Indeed the largest dissonance to date was initiated by ICANN itself when it ignored the fact that there was an operational .biz in existence when ICANN chose to create a different, inconsistent .biz in its root zone. The owners of the pre-existing use could have shut down ICANN's through legal action but they apparently chose the quieter, more gentle, and certainly less expense route of a simple and quiet death of their efforts. Competing roots can lead to name inconsistencies, but enlightened self interest - the desire not to have customers and users flee - plus the coercive force of trade and service mark processes to create priority rights in TLD names will make inconsistency a poor business choice to make for a root zone provider. Now, the definition of consistency is an interesting question. There are those who say consistency is 100% identity with the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign zone. I, personally, find that extremely restrictive and unwise. The definition of consistency that I use is one in which a TLD, if offered at all by a root zone provider, is identical with that same TLD name as offered by other root zone providers. But in this definition of consistency, each root zone provider might offer a somewhat different suite of TLDs. This latter definition of consistency has many practical benefits. First is that we know from massive experience (in everything from food markets to airlines to cable TV) that there will be a core set of TLDs that every root zone provider offers - this would be for the most part the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign suite of TLDs. Second, this softer definition of consistency permits growth at the edges without any centralized permission. New TLDs can spring up and fight for visibility and inclusion by root zone providers. Some will grow to become new members of the core suite of TLDs that are offered pretty much universally. Some will fail. Some will remain local boutique brands. Sure, this will mean that on occasion an email address or web URL will leak out to someone who can not use it. Big deal. Already on the net we frequently get dead and unusable email addresses. And it is far from infrequent that we get URL's that point to machines that are gone, behind firewalls we can't easily penetrate, or with content that has moved or changed. The vast majority of users will not > want to have to select/configure which name space they are using. That is a statement which I find intriguing. Users today already do that kind of name space selection when the pick a mobile phone provider or chose a TV provider. AOL users get their filtered landscape. In other words, users not only can, but do, make those choices, but they do so indirectly using knobs and levers that are quite distant from editing /etc/named.conf And to argue that such a system must not exist is to deny the reality that there is now power on the internet to prevent competing roots, with or without consistent name spaces, from coming into existence. > Here's a more apt analogy: > > Who needs to have one system of telephone numbers? Why not let > users decide which of (competing) phone number systems they > will use? Do we really have a single system of phone numbers? My sense is that we do not. And we most certainly do have competing phone systems that users do select among. Moreover, in today's telephone system we have exactly the situation that I described for competing DNS roots - core consistency with localized boutique namespaces. In addition, there are user created and managed directory services. The most basic being speed dial. From my point of view my home phone is the single digit '2', my wife's mobile is the single digit '3', and her office is '4'. When I call an airline to change some tickets the number I dial does not lead to one phone, but to an equivalence class of phones. My SIP phone number initiates a search process that does parallel ringing on some phones (POTS and VoIP phones) and also initiates a follow-me search for my laptop and mobile phone. The phone system, like the internet is full of systems that do mappings. All in all, the idea of one universal name space for DNS is something that may be pretty to consider but is, in practice, impossible and invites the creation of a heavy, intrusive, inefficient, and expensive oligarchy, such as ICANN, that will suppress innovation and enterprise while, at the same time, tend to become an arm of control, as ICANN has become, for certain industrial or governmental interests. It is much better to admit that DNS is imperfect and to allow those imperfections to become doorways through which imagination, innovation, and enterprise can act without the creation of a central authority. --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 Sep 27 15:07:59 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:07:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@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> <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> Message-ID: Thomas, On 9/27/07, Thomas Narten wrote: > Here's a more apt analogy: > > Who needs to have one system of telephone numbers? Why not let > users decide which of (competing) phone number systems they > will use? Spot on analogy, especially considering todays announcement re: plans to sign e164.arpa -- 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 Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 21:14:39 2007 From: Sylvia.Caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:14:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Bhutan releases Dzongkha Debian Linux Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20070927181333.03420870@peoplewho.org> http://stuff.techwhack.com/archives/2007/09/24/dzongkha-debian-linux/ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Fri Sep 28 02:46:40 2007 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] the USA prosecutes to test the definition of obscenity Message-ID: <791083.19532.qm@web54112.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi all, While we discuss the merits or otherwise of introducing new gTLDs, and freedom of speech issues that come with it, a woman in Pittsburgh, USA, "will go on trial in federal court here on obscenity charges for writings distributed on the Internet to about two dozen subscribers." And what disturbing obscenity has she been responsible for, well, "She faces six felony counts for operating a Web site called Red Rose, which featured detailed fictional accounts of the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children under the age of 10, mostly girls." The New York Times says "How Ms. Fletcher came to be selected for federal prosecution among the countless pornography purveyors is a vivid illustration of the fractured and uncertain state of the enforcement of obscenity law in the nation." The website has no images, just text. The story is available from the New York Times at http://nytimes.com/2007/09/28/us/28obscene.html. Don't ya just love Tories and their preoccupation with porn! America has a next-to-useless health system, for the poor anyway, huge problems with equality, and what does it do with its money, prosecute poor people for porn in a case that isn't anywhere near a certainty to get up. And why pick on this woman? I guess because she is poor helps. It's a funny old world we live in. Cheers 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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 05:54:37 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:54:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. 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> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410709280254n3f85b22bt7359a454ab9c816b@mail.gmail.com> Greetings - and - Just a short note thanking everyone for emphasizing this work and the inspiring contexts where it arose. I too was at the Tunis 'launch' (fair description?) and would like to be in the groups, when a list is gathered, and also wish to express appreciation for the excellent list of resources here shared. Very best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing,* LDMF. --- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D. For I.D. 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 2007ismy50thyearincomputingandIamawoman.com On 9/25/07, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Vittorio: > > I'm just saying that outreach on the initiative has been, well, a bit > lacking. Perhaps I'm wrong, and in that case - do tell me how the > initiative has grown and started to include players such as - APC, > Danish Institute for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, among many > others. > > I've tried to get people and several law schools interested - in > fact, I brought a delegation of law students from the University of > Toronto to the initial launch in Tunis . They were keen with the the > idea, and wanted to contribute similar work that has been done in > Canada.. The response, and it's been over two years - has been > silence. At least, that is what I'm told > > first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest one > be created so that scholars and human rights professionals can come > together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal > > Concrete ideas - well, if there's an event, forum and/or mailing list > - please get someone to get in touch with the following organizations > and/or lists: > > Global Human Rights Education listserv > http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-education/ > > Legal Professionals and Human Rights List > http://hrea.org/lists/hr-legal-professionals/markup/maillist.php > > American Bar Association, International Human Rights Committee > http://mail.abanet.org/scripts/wa.exe?A0=INTHUMRIGHTS > > International Freedom of Expression Exchange > http://www.ifex.org > > (btw. i'm attending their annual meeting in a few weeks. if there's > materials you want me to share, such as a summary of the meeting just > held - do let me know. Happy to distribute docs and/or share details) > > As well, the Human Rights Caucus has a great # of members who would > be - delighted - to know more. > > In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet > bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There > is great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave > - it has to really be the work of an active international coalition > and not just one person or one country. > > Again, if there are more people , countries and or regions involved - > do let me know. I would just - love - to see progress and movement > taking place in this initiative. > > regards > > Robert > > > > > On 25-Sep-07, at 6:07 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Robert Guerra ha scritto: > >> Wolfgang: > >> To be honest, i'm a bit pessamistic about the bill of rights > >> proposal. It was presented at WSIS/Tunis, at the IGF last year - > >> but, not really caught on outside of a small IGF community. > >> I'm a couple of dozen of human rights and legal lists, and there > >> is no mention of the proposal. > >> I really hate to say this - but, from my perspective it just looks > >> like an Italian project with little or no support from the > >> international legal and/or human rights community. > > > > As one of the people who are working on this, I would like to see > > comments that are a bit more constructive - if you think that > > participation is not broad enough yet (and it possibly is), you > > could join or help spreading the word. > > > > It is a bit depressing to see that whenever some people try to roll > > up their sleeves and work on real advances for human rights, there > > is much more support from some governments than from fellow civil > > society participants. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From anriette at apc.org Thu Sep 27 08:56:59 2007 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:56:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Bill of Rights - Hoping there's progress .. wishing for it to succeed. In-Reply-To: <46F967EB.1050502@bertola.eu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>, , <46F967EB.1050502@bertola.eu> Message-ID: <46FBC4BB.9931.49282805@anriette.apc.org> Whatever one's perspecitves on the Bill of Rights, there is a need to talk about rights, from many different perspectives. By fortunate coincidence I am in Rome this week for a 'participatory web for development' conference at the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and I will spend some time at the bill of rights meeting. Thanks for help with directions and getting me registered Vittorio. Anriette > Thanks, this is a valuable contribution. > > Robert Guerra ha scritto: > > first a question..is there a mailing list? If not, let me suggest > > one be created so that scholars and human rights professionals can > > come together to discuss , and develop a draft that's universal > > Yes, there's a coalition website at > http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org, a mailing list at > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights, and also a > conference website at http://www.dfiritaly2007.it/ . > > > In summary, one can't just announce someone as grand as an "internet > > bill of rights" and not engage others in a pro-active fashion. There > > is great interest in this - but, to succeed as a global inititiave > > - it has to really be the work of an active international coalition > > and not just one person or one country. > > Sure, but someone has to start, and I think this is a problem for all > dynamic coalitions; at least in terms of mailing list messages, apart > from the Privacy one, the others seem to have activity levels that are > similar to or even less than that of the Bill of Rights DC. > > Personally, I think that, more than at a monolithic Bill of Rights, we > should be aiming at a practical "Internet rights framework" developed > at the IGF, as the result of the coordinated work of all the > coalitions. There already are too manyv high level documents, and not > enough practical respect for human rights, or clarity about "down to > earth" principles that any blogger and any webmaster can apply. The > BoR coalition should thus discuss the conceptual and formal framework > to get to several declarations of rights, all deriving from the > fundamental statements of human rights, and all coming to a level > which is clear, applicable and enforceable. > > On the other hand, this is for what I know the first attempt to a > really multistakeholder approach to this discussion. In the past, the > techies released their edicts, some NGOs did their own, and some > governments also did the same. What we need is to understand how to > put all of this together. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - > vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at > http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > __ ------------------------------------------------------ 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 narten at us.ibm.com Fri Sep 28 09:32:22 2007 From: narten at us.ibm.com (Thomas Narten) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:32:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <46FBE869.8020709@cavebear.com> 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> <46FAA500.8090807@cavebear.com> <200709271538.l8RFc1sf020562@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <46FBE869.8020709@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <200709281332.l8SDWMDo028405@localhost.localdomain> Karl Auerbach writes: > You are assuming that competing roots necessarily cause a "fractured > namespace". That is not the case. Yes, I am assuming this, and I don't agree with your arguments that this is not the case. > And I sense that you consider "fractured" to be a negative > characteristic when, in fact, it may actually be the key to solving one > aspect of internet governance. Yes, I very much believe a fractured namespace to be a negative. As I've said before, users don't want to have to choose. You (and I) may be perfectly capable of choosing (that said -- I'd personally choose a single, global consistent name space). But we are not representative of typical users by a long shot. The vast majority have no understanding of the Internet, or how it works, but do just want it to work. And work consistently. > The issue is not singularity of roots but is instead consistency of > namespaces. yes. > Competing roots can perfectly well have consistent name spaces; Indeed > in practice virtually all are consistent with the NTIA/ICANN/Verisign > root zone. They can in theory, but I have serious doubts that they can in practice. > Competing roots do not necessarily lead to name dissonance. "not necessarily" may be technically true. But IMO, the odds are high that they will be problems, especially when the key idea behind "competition" is to let the system (or market?) weed out conflicts/collisions between competing owners of a name. That by definition means there will be conflicts and inconsistenicies during the sorting out period. > And in practice they rarely do. Oh, we have significant practice to look towards for guidance? Sorry, I don't think so. > The definition of consistency that I use is one in which a TLD, if > offered at all by a root zone provider, is identical with that same TLD > name as offered by other root zone providers. But in this definition of > consistency, each root zone provider might offer a somewhat different > suite of TLDs. Um, and what if two different root zone providers offer different content from the same TLD? This is bound to happen in practice and is precisely the problem that I think we need to avoid. There is a fundamental fallacy behind the multiple root arguments that we somehow don't need ICANN or some other other definitive body deciding who gets a TLD if there are multiple parties who want to use it. If there is a conflict for names (as there surely will be), someone/somebody/something has to arbitrate. You seem to be arguing that the problem is minor and/or the market will sort it out. IMO, the downsides of this approach outweigh the potential benefits. > Sure, this will mean that on occasion an email address or web URL will > leak out to someone who can not use it. Or, will map to the "wrong" content. Bad guys must be salivating at the potential opportunities for phishing, DOS, etc! > The vast majority of users will not > > want to have to select/configure which name space they are using. > That is a statement which I find intriguing. > Users today already do that kind of name space selection when the pick a > mobile phone provider or chose a TV provider. AOL users get their > filtered landscape. Oh, so you think it is a good thing if we have the big operators define and limit end user choices, and that it would be fine if they provided a selective view of the DNS name space? I understand that a lot of people are seriously concerned about concetrating that sort of power in the hands of a few large providers... > > Here's a more apt analogy: > > > > Who needs to have one system of telephone numbers? Why not let > > users decide which of (competing) phone number systems they > > will use? > Do we really have a single system of phone numbers? You have only one phone number (per phone), right? You don't have multiple numbers that you give out, due to the problem that some numbers don't work from some locations because the _number_ itself is invalid? (And don't count call forwarding and stuff like that, as it doesn't relate to the key point of _validity_ and _universality_ of the phone number itself.) > My sense is that we > do not. And we most certainly do have competing phone systems that > users do select among. I'm talking about the phone numbers, not systems or operators. > Moreover, in today's telephone system we have exactly the situation that > I described for competing DNS roots - core consistency with localized > boutique namespaces. > In addition, there are user created and managed directory services. The > most basic being speed dial. From my point of view my home phone is the > single digit '2', my wife's mobile is the single digit '3', and her > office is '4'. You are talking about local aliases for global numbers, and everyone knows that. I don't tell my aunt in Switzerland that she can call me via the single digit "2". > When I call an airline to change some tickets the number I dial does not > lead to one phone, but to an equivalence class of phones. And your point is? The number itself, however, refers to the same endpoint/service, regardless of from where in the world you dial it. Thomas ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wsis at ngocongo.org Fri Sep 28 13:33:16 2007 From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:33:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Closure of ICTRC - Petition Message-ID: <200709281732.l8SHWZG1030256@smtp1.infomaniak.ch> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Support Letter ICTRC - Sept 07(2).doc Type: application/msword Size: 49152 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam" Subject: TR: URGENT - Closure of the NGO ICTRC Office in Tehran - Last call for signature (deadline: 24 September) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:21:39 +0200 Size: 78867 URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: message-footer.txt URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Sep 29 15:14:25 2007 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:14:25 +1000 Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? Message-ID: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Sep 30 00:57:49 2007 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:57:49 +1000 Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> Message-ID: <23e001c8031e$7b7fbb90$8b00a8c0@IAN> -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: 30 September 2007 05:14 To: Governance Mailing List Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? > 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. 1. Power 2. Bandwidth 3. Interesting applications and content Ian Peter No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 25/09/2007 08:02 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send 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 Sun Sep 30 12:16:47 2007 From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:16:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <23e001c8031e$7b7fbb90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <66323.59424.qm@web51008.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi All, well, talking about "critical internet resource" I will look at : 1. bandwidth ; which i call it "access" 2.power ; electricity, with africa in mind and 3. appropriate regulatory framework . put these in place and the rest of the critical internet resource will follow what do you also think? thanks , Peter ebenezer, ghana telecom Ian Peter wrote: -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: 30 September 2007 05:14 To: Governance Mailing List Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? > 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. 1. Power 2. Bandwidth 3. Interesting applications and content Ian Peter No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: 25/09/2007 08:02 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, 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. -------------- 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 Sun Sep 30 14:58:13 2007 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:58:13 -0300 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: <46FFF1C5.1070707@rits.org.br> Grande Paul, This naming of the beast is the result of the negotiations in the MAG of the IGF. Given the tremendous resistance of some sectors against allowing discussion of the logical infrastructure (names, numbers, protocols, and, extending it a bit beyond ICANN's "untouchable universe", terms of trade of intercountry interconections -- but you keep stretching it...), this is the verbal form found to enable introducing the theme in the main agenda. So, it is not a well thought conception, it is rather a result of a lot of almost bloody arms twisting... ;) Have fun! fraternal regards --c.a. 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 > > > -- 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 kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org Sun Sep 30 11:21:25 2007 From: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kicki_Nordstr=F6m?=) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:21:25 +0200 Subject: SV: [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: <3DF8101092666E4A9020D949E419EB6F01CA22BF@ensms02.iris.se> Dear Paul, For persons with disability it is easy: 1: Accessibility to existing software available for persons with disabilities to resonable costs 2: Computers that can handle a USB there you, yourself have software programs loaded so as you can use computers which is not yours. 3: Training how to use application programs for PWD An of course access to electricity and computers! Yours Kicki Kicki Nordström Synskadades Riksförbund (SRF) World Blind Union (WBU) 122 88 Enskede Sweden Tel: +46 (0)8 399 000 Fax: +46 (0)8 725 99 20 Cell: +46 (0)70 766 18 19 E-mail: kicki.nordstrom at srfriks.org kicki.nordstrom at telia.com (private) -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Skickat: den 29 september 2007 21:14 Till: Governance Mailing List Ämne: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From vb at bertola.eu Sun Sep 30 06:13:37 2007 From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:13:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: Human rights and new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D88@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9D9D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A808DA9E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <60963F8A-1041-4B39-B878-B36AA2B3E92A@privaterra.info> <46F9404B.4050401@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DCA@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46F96DAF.1070609@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DD8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <46FA32E5.2090303@bertola.eu> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9BA9DE4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <46FF76D1.1020305@bertola.eu> I don't think that we'll ever come to agreement... What for me is balance (and common sense) between different principles, for you is a repressive compromise. And you still seem to miss the difference between identifiers and actual content (mentioning Rushdie's book is a nice rhetorical device to stir people's emotions, but not particularly on topic). Something that particularly strikes me is this point: Milton L Mueller ha scritto: >> instead, you insist on a request that it is not >> offensive for you, and is not offensive for me, >> but is offensive to many; and since it does not >> bring any perceivable advance to your freedom, > > Any concession to the principle that speech can be prohibited merely on > the basis of it being offensive to a few people, or even the majority of > people, is a huge blow to freedom. 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? 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? 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? Anyway, I have a last request to you: > I don't mind if you disagree with that. I just don't understand why you > want to position yourself as a "rights" advocate. I do not want to "position" myself, I just say what I think. I may be less clever or less qualified than you, but please do not question my intellectual honesty, especially as a device to support your ideas, or mock my ideas up in a way that suits your argument. 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. -- 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 11:42:26 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:42:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> Message-ID: <410844.41575.qm@web50209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >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 From nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 11:41:29 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> Message-ID: <998003.63589.qm@web50201.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >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 From nne75 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 11:42:43 2007 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:42:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? In-Reply-To: <3083BBFF04D1EA6D7A5AB24A@as-paul-l.local> Message-ID: <907593.42365.qm@web50204.mail.re2.yahoo.com> >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 From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Sep 30 11:56:02 2007 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:56:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? References: <23e001c8031e$7b7fbb90$8b00a8c0@IAN> Message-ID: <001901c8037a$68dff3e0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau> Dear Paul You've got the point : Power is issue n°1, at least in DCs ! However, this basic principle is mostly ignored or left out by so-called high level leaders gathering in so-called Summits on ICTs. So this hot potato won't be put on the (round) tables during the coming "Connect Africa Summit" Best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: ; "'Paul Wilson'" Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 6:57 AM Subject: RE: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical Internet resource"? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: 30 September 2007 05:14 > To: Governance Mailing List > Subject: [governance] For you as an Internet user, what is a "Critical > Internet resource"? > > >> 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. > > > 1. Power > 2. Bandwidth > 3. Interesting applications and content > > > Ian Peter > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.30/1030 - Release Date: > 25/09/2007 > 08:02 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés. Ce programme a supprimé10817 d'e-mails spam à ce jour. Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails. Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 16:16:02 2007 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:16:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Critical Internet Resources -->FW: [JoCI] Journal of Community Informatics: Community Informatics and System Design Message-ID: <000e01c8039e$bc761330$6900a8c0@michael78xnoln> To respond to Paul's question while making a shameless plug as well... My own understanding of "Critical Internet Resources" particularly as supportive of enabling and empowering communities through the use of ICTs can be found in the various articles of the Journal of Community Informatics which I edit...and which has epublished a particularly appropriate special issue... MG ----------------------------------------------------- The Journal of Community Informatics has just published its latest issue at http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej. We invite you to review the Table of Contents here and then visit our web site to review articles and items of interest. Thanks for the continuing interest in our work, Michael Gurstein Editor in Chief: Journal of Community Informatics Executive Director: Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training Vancouver, BC CANADA v6z 2s1 Phone 604-602-0624 Fax 604-602-0624 gurstein at gmail.com The Journal of Community Informatics Vol 3 No 1 (2007) Special Issue: Community Informatics and System Design Table of Contents http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/issue/view/16 H Editorial -------- Community Informatics and Systems Design Michael Gurstein Beyond Users to Communities - Designing Systems As Though Communities Matter - An Introduction to the Special Issue Aldo de Moor, Fiorella De Cindio Articles -------- Towards Systems Design for Supporting Enabling Communities Michael Bieber, Barbara S. McFall, Ronald E. Rice, Michael Gurstein A Design Theory Approach to Community Informatics: Community-Centered Development and Action Research Testing of Online Social Networking Prototype David T Bourgeois, Thomas A. Horan Community Networks as lead users in online public services design. Fiorella De Cindio, Laura Anna Ripamonti, Cristian Peraboni Making Use of Scenarios for Achieving Effective Use in Community Computing Contexts Roderick L Lee, Craig H Ganoe, Wendy A Schafer, Cecelia B Merkel, John M. Carroll, Mary Beth Rosson Using System Dynamics to Construct Design Theory for Community Information Systems Aldo de Moor Towards Supporting Community Information Seeking and Use Nkechi Nnadi, Michael Gurstein Reports -------- Community Organizations in the Information Age: A study of community intermediaries in Canada Prof. Vanda Rideout, Dr. Andrew Reddick, Dr. Susan O'Donnell, Dr. William McIver, Jr., Sandy Kitchen, Mary Milliken Points of View -------- Code of Ethics for Community Informatics Researchers Udo Averweg, Susan O'Donnell ________________________________________________________________________ The Journal of Community Informatics http://www.ci-journal.net !DSPAM:2676,46e1d0b986778929843807! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance