From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Apr  1 02:46:21 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:46:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] Fw: [SANOG] ISOC Fellowship to the IETF - seeking
 applicants for IETF 72 and IETF 73
Message-ID: <20080401064621.GA8239@hserus.net>

----- Forwarded message from Mirjam Kuehne <mir at isoc.org> -----

From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at isoc.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:20:15 +0200
To: sanog at sanog.org
Subject: [SANOG] ISOC Fellowship to the IETF - seeking applicants for IETF 72
	and IETF 73
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

Dear Colleagues,

The Internet Society announces that it is seeking applications  
for the next round of the ISOC Fellowship to the IETF  program. The  
program offers engineers from developing countries fellowships that  
fund the cost of attending an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)  
meeting.

As you know, the IETF is the Internet's premier standards-making  
body, responsible for the development of protocols used in IP-based  
networks. IETF participants represent an international community of  
network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers involved in  
the technical operation of the Internet and the continuing evolution  
of Internet architecture.

Fellowships will be awarded through a competitive application  
process. The Internet Society is currently accepting fellowship  
applications for the next two IETF meetings:

     * IETF 72 being held in Dublin, Ireland, 27 July - 1 August 2008
     * IETF 73 being held in Minneapolis, 16 - 21 November 2008

Up to five fellowships will be awarded for each IETF meeting.

Full details on the ISOC Fellowship to the IETF, including how to  
apply, are located on the ISOC website at :

	http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/fellowship

Fellowship applications for both IETF meetings are due by 2 May 2008.

The Internet Society formally launched the ISOC Fellowship to the  
IETF program in January 2007 after successfully piloting the program  
during 2006 at IETF 66 in Montreal and IETF 67 in San Diego. Fifteen  
individuals from 12 countries have participated in the program since  
its inception.

I encourage you to pass information about this program to individuals
involved in your regional operators' groups that have a keen interest
in the Internet standardisation activities of the IETF.  You also may
consider being a reference for the applicant.

If you have questions, please do not hesiate to contact Karen Rose
<rose at isoc.org> or Mirjam Kuehne <mir at isoc.org>.

Kind Regards,
Mirjam Kuehne
ISOC


-- 
This is the SANOG (http://www.sanog.org/) mailing list.


----- End forwarded message -----

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Tue Apr  1 08:29:21 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh at hserus.net)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 05:29:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] IPv6 Deployment: Just Where Are We?
Message-ID: <47f22aa1d7ee3@hserus.net>

Well worth a read
 
IPv6 Deployment: Just Where Are We?
By Geoff Huston, Mar 31, 2008
http://www.circleid.com/posts/ipv6_deployment_where_are_we/

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  1 09:47:33 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:47:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] IPv6 Deployment: Just Where Are We?
In-Reply-To: <47f22aa1d7ee3@hserus.net>
References: <47f22aa1d7ee3@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30804010647l57896b90xfa781cc82bad1e55@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Suresh
That was well thought.


Bst rgds
Aaron


On 4/1/08, suresh at hserus.net <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>
> Well worth a read
>
> IPv6 Deployment: Just Where Are We?
> By Geoff Huston, Mar 31, 2008
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/ipv6_deployment_where_are_we/
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080401/32273ad6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 08:56:07 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:56:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
Message-ID: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr>

It seems that this important announcement, made yesterday, was not
forwarded here. Since it has clear relevance with governance issues, I
repost it here:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39377525,00.htm

--

ICANN to shut down internet for one hour

David Meyer ZDNet.co.uk

Published: *01 Apr* 2008 10:27 BST

The main domain servers and related infrastructure controlling the 
internet will be powered down for one hour on Tuesday at 12pm, British 
Summer Time.

ICANN, the body responsible for maintaining the registry of domain names 
and IP addresses, announced on Tuesday that it would effectively turn 
off the internet in order to gauge the ecological impact of such a move.

The decision follows the success of the recently observed "Earth Hour", 
in which people around the globe turned off their lights for one hour in 
a gesture towards saving energy.

Unlike Earth Hour, ICANN's "Web-Off Hour" will not operate on a rolling 
basis according to time-zone differences around the world. ICANN itself 
is based in California, and its decision to turn off the internet there 
at 4am means that the UK will be without access for one hour starting at 
noon, British Summer Time.

The time of 4am was chosen in order to cause minimal disruption to the 
Californian economy, given the US's current financial downturn, but the 
impact on the rest of the world will have to be evaluated after the 
fact, said ICANN.

"The earth has been around for billions of years, but the internet has 
only been in existence for decades," reasoned ICANN spokesperson Yu 
Haveena Lough on Monday. Speaking to ZDNet.co.uk, Lough pointed to the 
vast energy consumption of server farms and personal computers, and 
suggested that the total energy saved during Web-Off Hour might be 
equivalent to that saved by pulling almost 956,003 SUVs off the road for 
a year and three-quarters.

ICANN's move is the latest in a string of "green IT" announcements made 
in recent years, as the technology industry strives to reduce its 
negative impact on global ecology.

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

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


From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Apr  2 09:42:58 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:42:58 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080402/b3de5c22/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 09:50:46 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:50:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr>

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:42:58PM +0000,
 kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote 
 a message of 91 lines which said:

>    The article is not clear on which Tuesday this exercise is
>    expected to take place;

Yesterday, April 1st...
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 09:57:50 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:57:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>

Hi,

a serious question.

does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?

a.


On 2 Apr 2008, at 15:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:42:58PM +0000,
> kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
> a message of 91 lines which said:
>
>>   The article is not clear on which Tuesday this exercise is
>>   expected to take place;
>
> Yesterday, April 1st...
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 10:04:02 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:04:02 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080402140402.GA31573@nic.fr>

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 03:57:50PM +0200,
 Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote 
 a message of 36 lines which said:

> does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?

Apparently no. There is a good article on Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From apisan at servidor.unam.mx  Wed Apr  2 10:07:41 2008
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:07:41 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
 <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Avri,

I can tell you about at least 110 million people who do not celebrate 
April Fools' Day, Mexico. We have our own strong tradition of fooling, 
jokes and chicanery on December 28. We have been warned of the influence 
of Anglo culture and are doubly skeptical with respect to messages from 
outside our cultural sphere (we don't believe everything that comes from 
Fox News anyway on any given day.)

Since the tradition seems to originate from a Christian-specific 
significant date, it seems possible that 2/3 of the world not only do not 
know about April Fools' Day, they resent the practical jokes as inflicted 
on them.

Finally: it is very telling that about the petty obsessions of some what 
they choose to joke about in exposing themselves to the world - a day 
late.

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Avri Doria wrote:

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:57:50 +0200
> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> To: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
> 
> Hi,
>
> a serious question.
>
> does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?
>
> a.
>
>
> On 2 Apr 2008, at 15:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:42:58PM +0000,
>> kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> a message of 91 lines which said:
>> 
>>>   The article is not clear on which Tuesday this exercise is
>>>   expected to take place;
>> 
>> Yesterday, April 1st...
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From pr+governance at x0.dk  Wed Apr  2 10:13:08 2008
From: pr+governance at x0.dk (Phil Regnauld)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:13:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <20080402141307.GU65942@macbook.catpipe.net>

Alejandro Pisanty (apisan) writes:
>
> Since the tradition seems to originate from a Christian-specific 
> significant date, it seems possible that 2/3 of the world not only do not 
> know about April Fools' Day, they resent the practical jokes as inflicted 
> on them.

	Was it the case here ?

> Finally: it is very telling that about the petty obsessions of some what 
> they choose to joke about in exposing themselves to the world - a day late.

	One would have assumed that, this being an Internet governance
	list, subscribers and readers would have had the amability of
	using their brains before panicking upon publication of said joke.

	That's the least I'd expect from people who're actually discussing
	the Internet in general, and ICANN's role in particular.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 10:14:26 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:14:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <20080402141426.GA32517@nic.fr>

On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 02:07:41PM +0000,
 Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> wrote 
 a message of 87 lines which said:

> Since the tradition seems to originate from a Christian-specific
> significant date,

No, it does not seem so. The date is not connected to any religious
event.



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

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


From apisan at servidor.unam.mx  Wed Apr  2 10:17:14 2008
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 14:17:14 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <20080402141307.GU65942@macbook.catpipe.net>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
 <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
 <20080402141307.GU65942@macbook.catpipe.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021416270.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Phil,

I will ask - there must be some three connationals here.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty


.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  .
      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

*Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
*LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
*Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614

---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .


On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Phil Regnauld wrote:

> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 16:13:08 +0200
> From: Phil Regnauld <pr+governance at x0.dk>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Phil Regnauld <pr+governance at x0.dk>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Alejandro Pisanty <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
> Cc: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty (apisan) writes:
>>
>> Since the tradition seems to originate from a Christian-specific
>> significant date, it seems possible that 2/3 of the world not only do not
>> know about April Fools' Day, they resent the practical jokes as inflicted
>> on them.
>
> 	Was it the case here ?
>
>> Finally: it is very telling that about the petty obsessions of some what
>> they choose to joke about in exposing themselves to the world - a day late.
>
> 	One would have assumed that, this being an Internet governance
> 	list, subscribers and readers would have had the amability of
> 	using their brains before panicking upon publication of said joke.
>
> 	That's the least I'd expect from people who're actually discussing
> 	the Internet in general, and ICANN's role in particular.
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ginger at paque.net  Wed Apr  2 13:09:09 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:39:09 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c894e4$4c194d00$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Venezuela does not celebrate April 1st, nor do most Latin Americans know what April Fools Day is, although Brazilian children play pranks on that day. In Venezuela, we celebrate "Day of the Innocents" on December 28th, the Catholic St. Innocent's Day. It is similar to April Fool's Day, but not as widespread or elaborate.

Saludos, Ginger
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Avri Doria 
  To: Governance Caucus 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:27 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour


  Hi,

  a serious question.

  does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?

  a.


  On 2 Apr 2008, at 15:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
  > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:42:58PM +0000,
  > kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
  > a message of 91 lines which said:
  >
  >>   The article is not clear on which Tuesday this exercise is
  >>   expected to take place;
  >
  > Yesterday, April 1st...
  > ____________________________________________________________
  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  >
  > For all list information and functions, see:
  >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  >

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

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080402/abd0e373/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Wed Apr  2 15:41:11 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:41:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
In-Reply-To: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804021241o2192f2c6lb908b8e5e192eb1@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Stephane for sharing this information.  Here, I was travelling at
the time and did not notice if those in transit at "the moment" felt the
gap.  So this is indeed news, and interesting even after the fact to learn
that this decision could be made, and carried out, and by specific agencies
and instrumentalities, and all that (that) implies.  Is there an estimate of
how many communications paused? Perhaps there is or will be discussion of
the import, and the process.

With best wishes, LDMF.

Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
Other Affiliations on Request.

Brief Summary Vita/Resume: (to be provided by Internet Link).
General Interest Link of the Week:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aRjexWycjao
(03/14/08 The Day Before The NYC Crane Collapse Accident).



On 4/2/08, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
>
> It seems that this important announcement, made yesterday, was not
> forwarded here. Since it has clear relevance with governance issues, I
> repost it here:
>
> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39377525,00.htm
>
> --
>
> ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
>
> David Meyer ZDNet.co.uk
>
> Published: *01 Apr* 2008 10:27 BST
>
> The main domain servers and related infrastructure controlling the
> internet will be powered down for one hour on Tuesday at 12pm, British
> Summer Time.
>
> ICANN, the body responsible for maintaining the registry of domain names
> and IP addresses, announced on Tuesday that it would effectively turn
> off the internet in order to gauge the ecological impact of such a move.
>
> The decision follows the success of the recently observed "Earth Hour",
> in which people around the globe turned off their lights for one hour in
> a gesture towards saving energy.
>
> Unlike Earth Hour, ICANN's "Web-Off Hour" will not operate on a rolling
> basis according to time-zone differences around the world. ICANN itself
> is based in California, and its decision to turn off the internet there
> at 4am means that the UK will be without access for one hour starting at
> noon, British Summer Time.
>
> The time of 4am was chosen in order to cause minimal disruption to the
> Californian economy, given the US's current financial downturn, but the
> impact on the rest of the world will have to be evaluated after the
> fact, said ICANN.
>
> "The earth has been around for billions of years, but the internet has
> only been in existence for decades," reasoned ICANN spokesperson Yu
> Haveena Lough on Monday. Speaking to ZDNet.co.uk, Lough pointed to the
> vast energy consumption of server farms and personal computers, and
> suggested that the total energy saved during Web-Off Hour might be
> equivalent to that saved by pulling almost 956,003 SUVs off the road for
> a year and three-quarters.
>
> ICANN's move is the latest in a string of "green IT" announcements made
> in recent years, as the technology industry strives to reduce its
> negative impact on global ecology.
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
Other Affiliations on Request.

Brief Summary Vita/Resume: (to be provided by Internet Link).
General Interest Link of the Week:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aRjexWycjao

(03/14/08 The Day Before The NYC Crane Collapse Accident).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080402/52ddc6f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr  2 15:51:25 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:51:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
Message-ID: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html

In case you¹ve missed this...I don¹t think it¹s an April Fool¹s joke.

Bill

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080402/834e90aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Apr  2 16:15:35 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:15:35 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <090901c894fe$58a48480$8b00a8c0@IAN>

So the JPA continues….

 

USA continues to act like a parent who doesn’t want her child to leave home
and is certain the child won’t cope without her.

 

I think in the circumstances the child should just get up and leave. ICANN
will never be viewed as an independent global organisation, and its role in
internet governance will never be seen to be legitimate, until it is fee of
the JPA. 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

   _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: 03 April 2008 06:51
To: Governance
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA

 


HYPERLINK
"http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html"http://ww
w.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html 

In case you’ve missed this...I don’t think it’s an April Fool’s joke.

Bill


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080403/8c9dc36e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 16:31:45 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:31:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>

hi,

i doubt it is a joke.  then again most commentators seemed to say, yes  
it should eventually be independent, but it needs some sort of  
oversight to take the place of NTIA/DOC.  so this should not be  
unexpected.

btw, does this mean they extended the sentence by a year?  or do i  
remember the dates incorrectly.

a.

On 2 Apr 2008, at 21:51, William Drake wrote:
>
> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html
>
> In case you’ve missed this...I don’t think it’s an April Fool’s joke.
>
> 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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Wed Apr  2 16:34:43 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 2 Apr 2008 20:34:43 -0000
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080402203443.94678.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html

Anyone who finds this the least bit surprising hasn't been paying
attention for the past year or two.

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Apr  2 20:06:17 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:06:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>
Message-ID: <910DE152-6FA4-4822-BB8D-B1EFB2B2647B@internet.law.pro>

On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> does this mean they extended the sentence by a year?  or do i  
> remember the dates incorrectly.

The JPA was scheduled to terminate on 30 Sept. 2009. This was a mid- 
term review. I expect we'll see a call for a "end review" this time  
next year.

       Bret


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

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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Wed Apr  2 20:19:10 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:19:10 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>
Message-ID: <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>

I didn't read this "announcement" as announcing much at all. I  
wouldn't be too quick to read much into it.

As far as whether ICANN ever will be privatized, remember that the  
document that started us on this process was a 1996 publication of the  
Clinton Administration. Clinton started the ball rolling, but left it  
to the next administration, Bush, to complete. When the JPA was agreed  
in 2006, to resolve in 2009, Bush, in turn, effectively passed the  
task to the next administration, McCain/Clinton/Obama, to complete. I  
don't think it's realistic to expect that new administration, whoever  
is leading it, six months into its term in office, to privatize ICANN  
completely in September, 2009. "Giving away the Internet," which is  
what it will be called by ICANN's political opponents here in the  
U.S., is politically risky. The understandable inclination of U.S.  
politicians, even those who might agree with the concept of  
privatizing these global resources, is to delay, and leave it to  
someone else to finally make it happen.

    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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Apr  2 20:23:06 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:23:06 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Bret, while agreeing with what you say, and with John Levine's analysis that
this was to be expected, it doesn't alter the fact that ICANN will never be
viewed as an independent global organisation, and its role in internet
governance will never be seen to be legitimate, until it is fee of the JPA.

There are things ICANN can do to get itself out of this mess.



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: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro]
> Sent: 03 April 2008 11:19
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> I didn't read this "announcement" as announcing much at all. I
> wouldn't be too quick to read much into it.
> 
> As far as whether ICANN ever will be privatized, remember that the
> document that started us on this process was a 1996 publication of the
> Clinton Administration. Clinton started the ball rolling, but left it
> to the next administration, Bush, to complete. When the JPA was agreed
> in 2006, to resolve in 2009, Bush, in turn, effectively passed the
> task to the next administration, McCain/Clinton/Obama, to complete. I
> don't think it's realistic to expect that new administration, whoever
> is leading it, six months into its term in office, to privatize ICANN
> completely in September, 2009. "Giving away the Internet," which is
> what it will be called by ICANN's political opponents here in the
> U.S., is politically risky. The understandable inclination of U.S.
> politicians, even those who might agree with the concept of
> privatizing these global resources, is to delay, and leave it to
> someone else to finally make it happen.
> 
>     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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date:
> 01/04/2008 17:37
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 21:15:58 2008
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:15:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com> <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <47F42FCE.1030504@cavebear.com>

Bret Fausett wrote:

> As far as whether ICANN ever will be privatized, remember that the 
> document that started us on this process was a 1996 publication of the 
> Clinton Administration. Clinton started the ball rolling, but left it to 
> the next administration, Bush, to complete. When the JPA was agreed in 
> 2006, to resolve in 2009, Bush, in turn, effectively passed the task to 
> the next administration, McCain/Clinton/Obama, to complete. I don't 
> think it's realistic to expect that new administration, whoever is 
> leading it....

There's that interesting twist should Hillary C. win - which is the Ira 
Magaziner factor.

For those who don't know, Ira M. was part of the Bill Clinton 
administration.  Ira M. worked with Hillary C. on the ill fated health 
care thing back then.

The Clintons appear still to have close relations with Ira M.

Ira M. is, or was, a business partner of Paul Twomey, President of ICANN.

Thus, if Hillary C. wins there will be a very short link between ICANN 
and the White House - perhaps so short that a 3am phone call from ICANN 
to the White House would be answered.

The other angle, which you mentioned is that sometimes there are long 
memories - Way back in the 1950's there was a witch hunt of sorts trying 
to find "the man who lost China".  Nobody in the US gov't today, whether 
executive or legislative branch, wants to run the risk of being labeled 
as "the person who lost the internet".

		--karl--

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

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


From icggov at johnlevine.com  Wed Apr  2 22:26:39 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 3 Apr 2008 02:26:39 -0000
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>Bret, while agreeing with what you say, and with John Levine's analysis that
>this was to be expected, it doesn't alter the fact that ICANN will never be
>viewed as an independent global organisation

Quite right.

> and its role in internet governance will never be seen to be
> legitimate, until it is fee of the JPA.

Maybe I'm unduly myopic, but for ICANN's faults, I don't see that they
have any trouble persuading everyone who matters that their DNS root
and their IP allocations are legitimate.

R's,
John

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 23:25:11 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:25:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com> <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820508@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro]
> I didn't read this "announcement" as announcing much at all. I
> wouldn't be too quick to read much into it.

True, it tells us very little except that the administration hasn't changed its position. What we seem to be overlooking is the simple fact that the NTIA announcement is a brief yet fairly accurate summary of the comments they received in the aggregate. Let's look a bit more carefully at what they said:

"Although views during the midterm review represent diverse perspectives, there was general consensus on the need to preserve the security and stability of the DNS and the recognition that ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet DNS."

Well, yeah, we didn't see any comments favoring an insecure and unstable internet, did we? And there was no substantial body of comment calling for ICANN to be abolished and replaced with something else. These were about the only points that could be described as "general consensus" within the comments.

"ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, but most participants agree that important work remains..." 

True: other than ICANN itself and its ISOC-based allies, even those who strongly favor ending the JPA and the ties to the USG think that reforms need to be made in the next 18 months. 

What kind of work remains? The rest of the comments can be seen as reflections of different constituencies' points:

"...to increase institutional confidence through implementing effective processes that will enable: ...accountability;"

IGP and several others stressed the need for accountability...

"responsiveness;" and " stakeholder participation;"

Many consumer groups and some individuals complained about this. 

"long term stability;" "continued private sector leadership," 

A lot of the DC-based business interests made a point about this, including those who advanced the crazy idea that the US had to stay in control to protect ICANN from governments.

"increased contract compliance;"

This was the IPR crowd's line. 

"and enhanced competition."

This was the concern of some who want more new TLDs

So if the summary of comments was reasonably accurate, the question we ought to be asking is why the NTIA has consigned itself to passively collecting, collating and noting alternate views. 

The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about what needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from their political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to take any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has no vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the status quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.

I hope some of our more naïve ICANN-ocrats will learn from this experience, about the idiocy of so-called "consensus-based" policy making when there are major power struggles or distributional issues at stake. The US NTIA asks for comment from a public (biased of course toward Washington DC), knowing full well that they are not going to get a unified and consistent message; it then uses the lack of agreement to legitimate its preconceived tendency to stay in the same place, despite the fact that the preponderance of the global community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and anyone with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the long term. 

In other words, appeals to consensus can be used to sustain a problematic or patently unjust status quo, as has happened for years with the Whois situation. And now the shoe is on ICANN's foot. Some poetic justice in that, I guess.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  2 23:27:05 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:27:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
> 
> Maybe I'm unduly myopic, but for ICANN's faults, I don't see that they
> have any trouble persuading everyone who matters that their DNS root
> and their IP allocations are legitimate.
> 

I think you're confusing "legitimacy" with acceptance based on a lack of
any feasible alternative. 


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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr  2 23:34:38 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:04:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820508@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com> <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820508@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <005301c8953b$a6d0ccd0$f4726670$@net>

> In other words, appeals to consensus can be used to sustain a
> problematic or patently unjust status quo, as has happened for years
> with the Whois situation. And now the shoe is on ICANN's foot. Some
> poetic justice in that, I guess.

Possession is eleven tenths of the law, in this case

I haven't ever expected JPA to go away - there are enough interests in
favor, it is in force, and the interests against it are against it for
widely different reasons and cannot be reasonably expected to cooperate with
each other.

Lameduck Bush administration, or whatever new one comes in .. McCain,
Hilary, Obama.. abolition of JPA / DoC oversight aint going to happen.

	srs

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr  2 23:36:40 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:06:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <005401c8953b$ef58ea50$ce0abef0$@net>

> I think you're confusing "legitimacy" with acceptance based on a lack
> of any feasible alternative.

Oh no. "The only viable alternative" - and for all the discussion there's
still no feasible alternative, except in theory / as a gedankenexperiment..
is quite enough to confer legitimacy.  Legitimate, illegitimate, whatever -
trying to uproot this without a viable alternative in place to replace it,
one that wont get mired in the same set of issues we currently face (only
spread across a much broader canvas) is going to fail.

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

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


From rusdiah at rad.net.id  Wed Apr  2 23:43:26 2008
From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (Rudi Rusdiah)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:43:26 +0700
Subject: april fool jokes or real ? [governance] ICANN to shut down internet
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <47F4525E.1090605@rad.net.id>

dear all,

1 sorry for the questions... but seriously..., so this shut down, was it 
a joke on april fools day ?

2 what does it mean by Internet shutdown... how can you shut down 
Internet ?... it is a network of network... is it just shutting down the 
backbones , name server (DNS) or what ?

a little bit confuse with this shut down... and is there any report of 
damage... or it is just a joke after all ? :-)

regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel - indonesia

Alejandro Pisanty wrote:
> Avri,
>
> I can tell you about at least 110 million people who do not celebrate 
> April Fools' Day, Mexico. We have our own strong tradition of fooling, 
> jokes and chicanery on December 28. We have been warned of the 
> influence of Anglo culture and are doubly skeptical with respect to 
> messages from outside our cultural sphere (we don't believe everything 
> that comes from Fox News anyway on any given day.)
>
> Since the tradition seems to originate from a Christian-specific 
> significant date, it seems possible that 2/3 of the world not only do 
> not know about April Fools' Day, they resent the practical jokes as 
> inflicted on them.
>
> Finally: it is very telling that about the petty obsessions of some 
> what they choose to joke about in exposing themselves to the world - a 
> day late.
>
> Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  
> .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
>
> *Mi blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
> *LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
> *Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, 
> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
>
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
>  Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  
> .  .  .
>
>
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:57:50 +0200
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> To: Governance Caucus <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: ICANN to shut down internet for one hour
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> a serious question.
>>
>> does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 2 Apr 2008, at 15:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 01:42:58PM +0000,
>>> kwasi boakye-akyeampong <kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>>> a message of 91 lines which said:
>>>
>>>>   The article is not clear on which Tuesday this exercise is
>>>>   expected to take place;
>>>
>>> Yesterday, April 1st...

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Apr  3 02:02:19 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:02:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820508@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Milton,

Agree with most of your post, but one comment.

On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about what
> needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
> nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from their
> political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to take
> any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has no
> vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the status
> quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.

Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice of
attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political will."
There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space for
movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak state
(save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs is
just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally), 3 of
whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce Sec.
and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think tanks
and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this, so why
dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA staffers
just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all the
assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free into
the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
non-voters in distant lands happy?

> community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and anyone
> with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the long
> term. 

In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read meat to
right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?

Cheers,

Bill 


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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  3 02:47:06 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:47:06 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <000e01c89556$901db050$8b00a8c0@IAN>

My assumption is that if ICANN wants to be an international body, it has to
make itself one. Not rely on USG to do it, who have no such interest.



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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: 03 April 2008 17:02
> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 
> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
> 
> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about
> what
> > needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
> > nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from
> their
> > political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to
> take
> > any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has
> no
> > vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the
> status
> > quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
> 
> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice of
> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
> will."
> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space for
> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak state
> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs is
> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally), 3
> of
> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce Sec.
> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think tanks
> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this, so
> why
> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
> staffers
> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all the
> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free
> into
> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
> non-voters in distant lands happy?
> 
> > community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and
> anyone
> > with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
> long
> > term.
> 
> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
> that,
> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read meat
> to
> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date:
> 01/04/2008 17:37
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 02:55:12 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 08:55:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com>


On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
>
> In the long run we're all dead,

that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.

> so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read  
> meat to
> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?

so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures  
that long?

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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Apr  3 03:01:09 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:01:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <000e01c89556$901db050$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Sure, but means what, just secede?  Have John Perry Barlow write another
declaration of independence?  The last one worked out so well....

Given the politics and legalities, what's a plausible scenario?

Best

Bill


On 4/3/08 8:47 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> My assumption is that if ICANN wants to be an international body, it has to
> make itself one. Not rely on USG to do it, who have no such interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: 03 April 2008 17:02
>> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>> 
>> Hi Milton,
>> 
>> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
>> 
>> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about
>> what
>>> needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
>>> nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from
>> their
>>> political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to
>> take
>>> any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has
>> no
>>> vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the
>> status
>>> quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
>> 
>> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice of
>> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
>> will."
>> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space for
>> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak state
>> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs is
>> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally), 3
>> of
>> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce Sec.
>> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
>> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
>> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think tanks
>> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this, so
>> why
>> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
>> staffers
>> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all the
>> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free
>> into
>> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
>> non-voters in distant lands happy?
>> 
>>> community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and
>> anyone
>>> with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
>> long
>>> term.
>> 
>> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
>> that,
>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read meat
>> to
>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance



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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Thu Apr  3 03:19:50 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:49:50 +0530
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <000e01c89556$901db050$8b00a8c0@IAN> <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <008b01c8955b$1c6fca30$554f5e90$@net>

> Sure, but means what, just secede?  Have John Perry Barlow write
> another declaration of independence?  The last one worked out so well....

Another alternative - gray uniforms, sabers, stars and bars flag .. 

Oh wait, that didn't work out too well either.

	srs

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

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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Thu Apr  3 03:30:37 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:30:37 +0200
Subject: april fool jokes or real ? [governance] ICANN to shut down
 internet
In-Reply-To: <47F4525E.1090605@rad.net.id>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx> <47F4525E.1090605@rad.net.id>
Message-ID: <20080403073037.GA10197@nic.fr>

On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:43:26AM +0700,
 Rudi Rusdiah <rusdiah at rad.net.id> wrote 
 a message of 87 lines which said:

> so this shut down, was it a joke on april fools day ?

It was. Not only was it sent on April 1st (and I insisted on the day)
but anyone could see it was a joke, for the exact reasons you explain:

> 2 what does it mean by Internet shutdown... how can you shut down
> Internet ?... it is a network of network... is it just shutting down
> the backbones , name server (DNS) or what ?

Governance-speaking, it is clear for everyone on this list that no
organization (ICANN, Microsoft, IETF, ITU, whatever) has the power to
shutdown the entire Internet. As often with April's 1st jokes, it is
made for people to think about the news we receive daily. Are they
realistic? Are they true?

It was also an opportunity to learn new things, for instance that
April's fools day is not universal. 

On the other hand, I also had a confirmation that once you mention
ICANN in an email, Alejandro Pisanty steps in to defend Marina del Rey
:-)

Practical jokes' amateurs may appreciate these:

http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/gday/index.html (Google invented a
technology to search Web pages that do not exist yet)

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt (IETF will now sells the
rights to protocol fields to raise money)


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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Apr  3 03:35:05 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:35:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com>
Message-ID: <C41A5549.10B00%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Avri,

On 4/3/08 8:55 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com> wrote:

> 
> On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> In the long run we're all dead,
> 
> that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.

It's a quote from Keynes, who was a reasonably optimistic chap.  You were
hoping for something even better?
 
>> so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
>> meat to
>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
> 
> so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures
> that long?

Not saying it'll be particularly comfortable or without Sturm und Drang, but
what exactly would be the scenario in which it's unable to weather the
storms and muddle through like all the other organizations that labor under
conditions they don't like?

Might help shift the debate a little if for the next review NTIA were to
hear a LOT more from proponents of change, including a fleshed out and
plausible scenario as to how independence would work geopolitically, why
there'd be no real risk of "takeover by foreign governments," how we could
have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of security,
stability, and control in the last instance as now.   Something that would
make ITAA, DOD, et al say, hmmm...I don't think this has been done yet
either by ICANN or others, so expecting a leap of faith in the beltway seems
ill-advised.  Those are reserved for other issues...

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  3 03:37:11 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:37:11 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <003a01c8955d$8eaae240$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Bill asked

> Hi Ian,
> 
> Sure, but means what, just secede?  Have John Perry Barlow write another
> declaration of independence?  The last one worked out so well....
> 
> Given the politics and legalities, what's a plausible scenario?

Well here s a few thoughts to get the ball rolling

1. Sign another parallel (for a short time) agreement with an international
body eg UN (maybe via IGF) for a similar oversight function
2. Relocate HQ to another country
3. Raise with its constituencies and actively promote an argument to be
declared an international organisation
4. Gradually and subtly transfer its powers to a related organisation that
is international and then gradually drop the old one.
5. Give some thought to the matter for a start
6. Believe that independence from USG oversight really is fundamental to
gaining international credibility and legitimacy
7. Believe that it is important to do something

I'll leave it to the Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition to come up with the
Declaration of Independence


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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: 03 April 2008 18:01
> To: Ian Peter; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> Hi Ian,
> 
> Sure, but means what, just secede?  Have John Perry Barlow write another
> declaration of independence?  The last one worked out so well....
> 
> Given the politics and legalities, what's a plausible scenario?
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On 4/3/08 8:47 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
> > My assumption is that if ICANN wants to be an international body, it has
> to
> > make itself one. Not rely on USG to do it, who have no such interest.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> >> Sent: 03 April 2008 17:02
> >> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> >>
> >> Hi Milton,
> >>
> >> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
> >>
> >> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information
> about
> >> what
> >>> needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
> >>> nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from
> >> their
> >>> political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going
> to
> >> take
> >>> any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency
> has
> >> no
> >>> vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the
> >> status
> >>> quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
> >>
> >> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice
> of
> >> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
> >> will."
> >> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space
> for
> >> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak
> state
> >> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs
> is
> >> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally),
> 3
> >> of
> >> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce
> Sec.
> >> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
> >> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
> >> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think
> tanks
> >> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this,
> so
> >> why
> >> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
> >> staffers
> >> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all
> the
> >> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free
> >> into
> >> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
> >> non-voters in distant lands happy?
> >>
> >>> community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and
> >> anyone
> >>> with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
> >> long
> >>> term.
> >>
> >> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
> >> that,
> >> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
> >> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
> meat
> >> to
> >> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date:
> 01/04/2008 17:37
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 03:43:59 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:43:59 +0200
Subject: april fool jokes or real ? [governance] ICANN to shut down
 internet
In-Reply-To: <20080403073037.GA10197@nic.fr>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr> <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr> <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx> <47F4525E.1090605@rad.net.id> <20080403073037.GA10197@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <385B5000-F93E-4442-89D1-E75BF2AEA5FC@psg.com>


On 3 Apr 2008, at 09:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt (IETF will now sells the
> rights to protocol fields to raise money)
>


ouch.

the problem with most ad-absurdum is that is bears too much  
resemblance to reality.

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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  3 03:42:22 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 18:42:22 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A5549.10B00%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <003b01c8955e$49066740$8b00a8c0@IAN>


Bill again
> 
> Might help shift the debate a little if for the next review NTIA were to
> hear a LOT more from proponents of change, including a fleshed out and
> plausible scenario as to how independence would work geopolitically, why
> there'd be no real risk of "takeover by foreign governments," how we could
> have rock solid guarantees of exactly the same levels of security,
> stability, and control in the last instance as now.

Waste of time. As others have pointed out there will be no action there and
whatever is argued, other more powerful forces will continue to argue for US
sovereignty. And will win the day in US bureaucracy.

Better just get on with changing things. The emperor has no clothes if ICANN
reorganizes and restructures and moves on.

Ian

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
17:37
 

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

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


From rusdiah at rad.net.id  Thu Apr  3 04:20:18 2008
From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (rusdiah at rad.net.id)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:20:18 +0700 (WIT)
Subject: best jokes?: April fool jokes or real ? [governance] ICANN to shut
Message-ID: <51262.125.161.177.50.1207210818.squirrel@mail.rad.net.id>



Well,  so i vote as best joke/pranks on 1st of april(april fools)
@governance mlist :-)
 
 i took it a bit  serious, 
because it was circulated in serious governance mailing list :-)
rgds, rudi 

 Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: 
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:43:26AM +0700,
 Rudi Rusdiah
<rusdiah at rad.net.id> wrote 
 a message of 87 lines which
said:



so this shut down, was it a joke on april fools day ?



It was. Not only was it sent on April 1st (and I
insisted on the day)
but anyone could see it was a joke, for the
exact reasons you explain:



2 what does it mean by Internet shutdown... how can you shut
down
Internet ?... it is a network of network... is it just shutting
down
the backbones , name server (DNS) or what ?



Governance-speaking, it is clear for everyone on
this list that no
organization (ICANN, Microsoft, IETF, ITU,
whatever) has the power to
shutdown the entire Internet. As often
with April's 1st jokes, it is
made for people to think about the news
we receive daily. Are they
realistic? Are they true?

It
was also an opportunity to learn new things, for instance that
April's fools day is not universal. 

On the other hand, I
also had a confirmation that once you mention
ICANN in an email,
Alejandro Pisanty steps in to defend Marina del Rey
:-)

Practical jokes' amateurs may appreciate these:

http://www.google.com.au/intl/en/gday/index.html (Google invented a
technology to search Web pages that do not exist yet)

http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt (IETF will now sells the
rights to protocol fields to raise money)






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080403/71d3ea34/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 04:54:59 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 10:54:59 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com>
 <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425B92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Here is another perspective:
 
The role of the JPA is overestimated in the debate. I fully supported to terminate the JPA as soon as possible and I supported also ICANNs statement. But if it is terminated it does not change things too much. It would be an important symbolic act and stimulate self-confidence of numerous constituenices, involved in thre broad ICANN community. And it could create unexpetced positive side-effetcs which can come from reduced self-censorship of decision makers within the various constituencies. And it would be something like win-win. It would cost nothing to the US administration. A clever new USA administration could turn this into a big public and communication success telling the world that the USA becomes more open to international concerns. 
 
But again the JPA does not really constitute a command-control relationship. Joint meetings and reporting duties to the "global community" (including to the DoC) is not something which is normally understood under "oversight". The JPA is a "joint project" which was established on the basis of a certain common "understanding" (laid down in the original MoU). It did constitute a "light hand" over ICANN to push it forward to fulfill its duties (mainly laid down in the Annex), which includes also to become THE "model" for a multistakeholder Internet organisation. And this is good. Without such a light pressure probably ICANN would have never worked towards the building of the At Large Network.    
 
However, the real point in the global power struggle is not the JPA, it is the IANA contract. And the IANA contract is not the subject of the recent debate. 
 
If the next administration terminates the JPA and gives independence to ICANN (with some final minor obligations probably laid down in an exchange of letters as a very low form of arrangement) not much will change. The US will not "give away anything" or "loose the Internet". But the DOC can sell it to the world as a big step forward giving the global Internet community a greater role in doing their own business and strengthening the private sector leadership principle embedded in a multilayer multiplayer multistkaholder mechanism. In such a mechanism VeriSign will be the strongest private player and ISOC the strongest non-commercial player and IANA will continue to control the IP addresses and the USG will play a leading role in the GAC. And the DOC will tell the Senate that nothing has changed. And it is right. 
 
If China wants to have a ccTLD for .cn with Chinese characters (after the JPA termination) it still has to go through the IANA process which means that the .cn root zone file will move from IANA to the NTIA/DOC and a US governmental person will look into the case and only after clearance it will authorize its publication in the Hidden Server managed by VeriSign. This is a burocratical technical procedure (never misused but always mistrusted with a lot of symbolic meaning). Neither the IANA contract nor the contract between the DoC and VeriSign will be affected from the termination of the JPA. And this IANA/DOC/VeriSign-procedure will be defined as an important element to guarantee the security and stability of the Internet, a service of the USG for the global Internet community. And (if the symbolism is excluded) it is difficult to disagree. Did some intelligent workable and effective solutions came up in the ten years of discussion? A UN Internet Security council? Another private company as external oversight body?  A new NGO? ICANN itself? All ideas have their merits but unchecked side-effects. And they could open other boxes of pandora. 
 
My proposal - which I made in WGIG - to establish an external (multistakholder) ad-hoc Committee (like ICANNs committee for the contigency plan) which would be activated only in cases where a deletion, modification or addition of a root zone file into or out of the root raises concerns by legitimate parties was never seriously discussed. Lets wait and see what will happend. 
 
Wolfgang   

________________________________

Von: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro]
Gesendet: Do 03.04.2008 02:19
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA



I didn't read this "announcement" as announcing much at all. I 
wouldn't be too quick to read much into it.

As far as whether ICANN ever will be privatized, remember that the 
document that started us on this process was a 1996 publication of the 
Clinton Administration. Clinton started the ball rolling, but left it 
to the next administration, Bush, to complete. When the JPA was agreed 
in 2006, to resolve in 2009, Bush, in turn, effectively passed the 
task to the next administration, McCain/Clinton/Obama, to complete. I 
don't think it's realistic to expect that new administration, whoever 
is leading it, six months into its term in office, to privatize ICANN 
completely in September, 2009. "Giving away the Internet," which is 
what it will be called by ICANN's political opponents here in the 
U.S., is politically risky. The understandable inclination of U.S. 
politicians, even those who might agree with the concept of 
privatizing these global resources, is to delay, and leave it to 
someone else to finally make it happen.

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

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


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr  3 05:43:28 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:13:28 +0530
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for Caipirinyas
In-Reply-To: <47F1A158.6020508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <20080403094349.41D16A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>

 

Hi All

 

The nomcom for selecting IGC nominees for the MAG has started functioning
with the following members. (It will begin deliberating on actual selection
after the 8th when submission of nominations close.)

 

Gurumurthy K

Ian Peter

Robert Guerra

Rudi Rusdiah

Hakikur Rahman

 

They were asked to elect a (voting) chair among themselves, with nomcom
experience being the main criterion. They have elected Robert Guerra as the
nomcom chair. Please help them to do their work by sharing your views on the
criteria for selecting IGC nominees for the MAG.

 

Also, to remind once again that nominations, including self-nominations, for
being considered by the nomcom for selection of IGC nominees for the MAG
have to sent in by the 8th of April. Nominations can be sent to the nomcom
chair, Robert Guerra and the co-coordinators. Thanks.

 

Parminder

 

(I am still in areas with no connectivity - this was a brief interlude while
passing through a connectivity area. I will be connected 6th afternoon
onwards. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080403/a00d3d81/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 08:18:17 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:18:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <47F4CB09.4070502@rits.org.br>

Yes, but the end result is the same -- nothing will change (maybe 
otherwise with Obama? :)).

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
>>
>> Maybe I'm unduly myopic, but for ICANN's faults, I don't see that they
>> have any trouble persuading everyone who matters that their DNS root
>> and their IP allocations are legitimate.
>>
> 
> I think you're confusing "legitimacy" with acceptance based on a lack of
> any feasible alternative. 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Thu Apr  3 10:53:59 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 16:53:59 +0200
Subject: april fool jokes or real ? [governance] ICANN to shut down
 internet
In-Reply-To: <385B5000-F93E-4442-89D1-E75BF2AEA5FC@psg.com>
References: <20080402125607.GA21912@nic.fr>
	 <271781.99366.qm@web25506.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	 <20080402135046.GA29346@nic.fr>
	 <D89A2703-3F8E-4222-9992-6B16D667D57D@psg.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804021402000.21829@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
	 <47F4525E.1090605@rad.net.id> <20080403073037.GA10197@nic.fr>
	 <385B5000-F93E-4442-89D1-E75BF2AEA5FC@psg.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30804030753n4a6393fs1a969753c8b4c6d7@mail.gmail.com>

Avri wrote: "does every culture celebrate 1 april with practical jokes?"
Certainly, this is a funny hobby here in Cameroon.
You know what? I arrived the office and my boss told me that the former
Minister of Finance of my country (currently undergoing Police
interrogations for alleged malfeasance) committed suicide at night. And the
source for the information was that some one "highly placed" called my boss
from Yaounde where the police questioning is taking place.
I followed the news in the morning and no such thing was reported. I told
myself that may be such exclusive information might have not reached
local media organs. And for over three hours, surfed through the web sites
of news organs in the world that I know and none could, say, announce the
information.
My interest in such a story, you could ask? I wanted to know how a former
authority could commit suicide at the Police premises and with what means.
Frustrated that no media organ was confirming the information nor that I am
yet to understand the circumstances of such an act, I moved up to my boss,
wearing a dejected look, to complain that no media organ was yet to confirm
the info, only to be told "Aaron, April fool".
That is it about April fool here,

Aaron



On 4/3/08, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 3 Apr 2008, at 09:30, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5241.txt (IETF will now sells the
> > rights to protocol fields to raise money)
> >
> >
>
> ouch.
>
> the problem with most ad-absurdum is that is bears too much resemblance to
> reality.
>
> 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
>



-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080403/4f4c14a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From icggov at johnlevine.com  Thu Apr  3 12:09:03 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 3 Apr 2008 16:09:03 -0000
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <003a01c8955d$8eaae240$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080403160903.77201.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

This all seems rather pointless to me.  The only people whose opinions
about ICANN matter are the root server operators and the RIRs.

A short review of the roots will reveal that three of them, E, G, and
H, are operated by agencies of the US government, two, B and D by
universities with extensive government contracts, and two of them, A
and J, by Verisign who for obvious reasons isn't going to do anything
to gratuitously annoy the USG.  Could you tell us about your strategy
to persuade them to do what you want what than what the USG wants?

ICANN does an adequate job of running IANA and the ccTLDs, with no
political interference.  If any US administration were going to try to
turn off .CU and .IR it would have been this one, but they didn't.

ICANN's bureaucratic constipation makes it unable to add any
interesting new TLDs, but in the real world nobody cares, they all use
either .COM or their local ccTLD and would do so even if they had a
thousand funky new TLDs to choose from.

IANA does OK allocating /8's to the RIRs, and nobody's ever offered an
alternative that wouldn't be much worse. (Recall grumblings a year or
two ago from tiny countries that wanted all countries to get the same
number of IP addresses.)

How could it possibly be to their benefit to side with a "rogue" ICANN
vs the USG?  Get real.

R's,
John



>Well here s a few thoughts to get the ball rolling
>
>1. Sign another parallel (for a short time) agreement with an international
>body eg UN (maybe via IGF) for a similar oversight function
>2. Relocate HQ to another country
>3. Raise with its constituencies and actively promote an argument to be
>declared an international organisation
>4. Gradually and subtly transfer its powers to a related organisation that
>is international and then gradually drop the old one.
>5. Give some thought to the matter for a start
>6. Believe that independence from USG oversight really is fundamental to
>gaining international credibility and legitimacy
>7. Believe that it is important to do something
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 16:14:13 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:14:13 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080403160903.77201.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c895c7$519eeee0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

John, we are confusing the IANA contract and JPA now. My comments applied to
JPA and I think if that is replaced or made redundant first, the IANA
details can follow peacefully and easily. 

I don’t think it is pointless at all - rather, I think it is totally
necessary these issues be addressed and I think they are central to IGF.

We seem to be able to run international telecommunications, air transport,
shipping, sport, and a number of other functions perfectly well without any
single government having specific unequal rights. If we can't find a way to
do this for the Internet, someone else will. Or it will be rendered
obsolete. 

As regards the root, there is no magic here - only trust and universal
support make the Verisign root authoritative. If that support erodes or
instead is placed elsewhere, IANA is a piece of history.

I have a spare PC which could be used for the authoritative root. I'll
donate it to ICANN, all we needs is a sensible international agreement to
respect ICANN's decisions here rather than subject root decisions to a
unilateral authorization process by a single rogue government.







> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
> Sent: 04 April 2008 03:09
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> This all seems rather pointless to me.  The only people whose opinions
> about ICANN matter are the root server operators and the RIRs.
> 
> A short review of the roots will reveal that three of them, E, G, and
> H, are operated by agencies of the US government, two, B and D by
> universities with extensive government contracts, and two of them, A
> and J, by Verisign who for obvious reasons isn't going to do anything
> to gratuitously annoy the USG.  Could you tell us about your strategy
> to persuade them to do what you want what than what the USG wants?
> 
> ICANN does an adequate job of running IANA and the ccTLDs, with no
> political interference.  If any US administration were going to try to
> turn off .CU and .IR it would have been this one, but they didn't.
> 
> ICANN's bureaucratic constipation makes it unable to add any
> interesting new TLDs, but in the real world nobody cares, they all use
> either .COM or their local ccTLD and would do so even if they had a
> thousand funky new TLDs to choose from.
> 
> IANA does OK allocating /8's to the RIRs, and nobody's ever offered an
> alternative that wouldn't be much worse. (Recall grumblings a year or
> two ago from tiny countries that wanted all countries to get the same
> number of IP addresses.)
> 
> How could it possibly be to their benefit to side with a "rogue" ICANN
> vs the USG?  Get real.
> 
> R's,
> John
> 
> 
> 
> >Well here s a few thoughts to get the ball rolling
> >
> >1. Sign another parallel (for a short time) agreement with an
> international
> >body eg UN (maybe via IGF) for a similar oversight function
> >2. Relocate HQ to another country
> >3. Raise with its constituencies and actively promote an argument to be
> >declared an international organisation
> >4. Gradually and subtly transfer its powers to a related organisation
> that
> >is international and then gradually drop the old one.
> >5. Give some thought to the matter for a start
> >6. Believe that independence from USG oversight really is fundamental to
> >gaining international credibility and legitimacy
> >7. Believe that it is important to do something
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date:
> 01/04/2008 17:37
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1357 - Release Date: 03/04/2008
10:48
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 19:32:32 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:32:32 -0300
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <000e01c89556$901db050$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <000e01c89556$901db050$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <47F56910.1090509@rits.org.br>

Obvious, dear compa Ian, and nearly impossible with the current ICANN
admin -- the exec staff and a majority of the current ICANN board's 
major motivation to consider internationalization is to escape from 
litigation in the USA, as the "president's commission" led by the 
current chairman implicitly wanted (see their report recommending a sort 
of internationalization of ICANN) -- the report, incidentally, was 
diplomatically ignored by the board in practice.

The ICANN admin's motivation is "what is best for the gTLD business?"
and "how can I best fulfill my contracts with the USG?" (very
objective), not much more. My feeling is whatever ICANN currently does 
to supposedly end the formalities with the USG is cosmetic. But what
external pressure (or even internal, through ALAC, NCUC, or even, the
gods forbid, the GAC etc) could have any significant effect?

In light of this, what are the alternatives, what is really worth
fighting for in the global logical infrastructure governance scheme of
things, if we genuinely (not the case of most of the ICANN "dirigentes" 
today) want global multistakeholder governance of the whole thing?

frt rgds

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> My assumption is that if ICANN wants to be an international body, it has to
> make itself one. Not rely on USG to do it, who have no such interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: 03 April 2008 17:02
>> To: Mueller, Milton; Governance
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>>
>> Hi Milton,
>>
>> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
>>
>> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information about
>> what
>>> needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to do
>>> nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership from
>> their
>>> political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not going to
>> take
>>> any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency has
>> no
>>> vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with the
>> status
>>> quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
>> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice of
>> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
>> will."
>> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space for
>> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak state
>> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs is
>> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally), 3
>> of
>> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce Sec.
>> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of economic
>> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
>> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think tanks
>> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this, so
>> why
>> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
>> staffers
>> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all the
>> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes free
>> into
>> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and some
>> non-voters in distant lands happy?
>>
>>> community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role, and
>> anyone
>>> with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
>> long
>>> term.
>> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
>> that,
>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read meat
>> to
>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date:
>> 01/04/2008 17:37
>>
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 01/04/2008
> 17:37
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 20:29:19 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Thu,  3 Apr 2008 17:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: 47F56910.1090509@rits.org.br
Message-ID: <sympa.1207268656.13268.875@lists.cpsr.org>

Well they sure are recruiting heavy-weight help these days!
Can you blame them, 'You guys' (the IGF) are sure puffing-up
the UN|ITU's validity. Of course they're gearing up with the
wright staff.

See Ref.:
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q2/003357.html
--

Nick Ashton-Hart Nick.Ashton-Hart at icann.org 
Tue Apr 1 12:36:10 EDT 2008 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my pleasure to introduce you to Frederic Teboul, the new At-Large
Regional Affairs Manager.

Born in Marseille, France, he began his career in the French Foreign Service in
Israel in 1997; he subsequently worked for several parts of the United Nations'
system from 2000 to 2005 in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA), Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Office for
Project Services (UNOPS), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
in Geneva, Kosovo, New York and Athens. He comes to us most recently from the
private sector, where he served as Business Development and Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) Director for the third-largest Greek maritime operator.

His experience in the public and private sectors in a wide variety of
international decision-making environments, working with governments, civil
society, and industry stakeholders from more than 200 different countries,
makes him a valuable addition to the At-Large team in the Policy Unit. He will
be responsible in particular for supporting the Regional At-Large Organisations
(RALOs), facilitating their involvement in policy development and assisting
them in their work representing the individual Internet user interest in ICANN.

Frederic has a PhD in Social Science from IAE-University Paris 1
Pantheon-Sorbonne, an MA in Political Science and International Relations from
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and an Executive MBA from the Athens
University of Economics and Business. He is a native French speaker, and also
has knowledge of Romanian and Hebrew - with a little Italian, Spanish, Arabic,
and Greek thrown in for good measure.

I hope you will join me in giving Frederic a warm welcome! He can be reached at
frederic.teboul at icann.org, or of course staff at atlarge.icann.org


Regards,

Nick Ashton-Hart
Director for At-Large
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Thu Apr  3 20:42:31 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Apr 2008 00:42:31 -0000
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <00b401c895c7$519eeee0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080404004231.1518.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>As regards the root, there is no magic here - only trust and universal
>support make the Verisign root authoritative. If that support erodes or
>instead is placed elsewhere, IANA is a piece of history.

Well, OK.  Now, could you remind us of what the plan is to persuade
people that that your IANA and root is preferable to the one that the
existing root servers offer?

You keep saying that ICANN isn't "legitimate".  But a billion Internet
users demonstrate otherwise.

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 20:52:17 2008
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:52:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C41A4D55.10AF9%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <47F57BC1.3090806@cavebear.com>

William Drake wrote:

> Given the politics and legalities, what's a plausible scenario?

The first question that one should ask before starting down a road 
toward governance is this: Is there a problem that needs to be solved?

I would submit that for much of what is happening on the internet there 
is no problem that needs solving.

In other words the null hypothesis - doing nothing - should always be 
among the options considered when we look at governing the internet.

Let's look at the case that people always use as their poster child for 
regulation: the domain name system.

It is assumed or asserted that there must be something called a global 
authoritative DNS name space.[*]

Why?

I suggest that rather than a top down system, which is what ICANN is, 
that acts as an overlord of names, we would obtain a quite workable 
worldwide DNS if we simply let DNS systems arise, fight with one another 
for users/customers, and allow feeble ones to die.

What would be the fastest road for a DNS provider to become feeble and 
die - it would be to offer resolution services that surprise users with 
inconsistencies and gaps.

In other words, the desire to remain in business would coerce DNS 
providers to become consistent with one another without any need of a 
worldwide overlording regulatory body.

Moreover, the absence of an ICANN-like overlord would allow new TLD 
offerings to come into being, fight for visibility, and naturally grow 
or die in pretty much the same way that new TV channels fight for space 
on cable and satellite systems in the US or the same way that new brands 
of toothpaste seek shelf space in stores and markets.  It's a well known 
process that goes under names like "building a brand" and "carving out 
market share".

And how would disputes over names be resolved - the way they always have 
been in the trade space - in court using rules of law (including those 
regarding the importation of external judgments by a local/domestic court.)

I suggest that one option for many of areas of internet governance is to 
not govern at all.

For those things that do remain to be governed, the next question to ask 
is whether those matters can be stripped of discretion and reduced to 
clerical jobs.  Most of the IANA job would fall into that category.

These clerical kinds tend to be non-contentious.  Does anybody get upset 
about the ITU doing the job of assigning the magic numbers that glue the 
mobile telephone systems together?   These sorts of things can often 
simply be contracted-out for their performance or handed to a handy 
already-existing body.

There are a very few remaining things that need real oversight with the 
exercise of discretion and the balancing of competing interests.  Those 
are the hard things.  But those hard things are made much easier to 
handle if they have been pre-stripped of all of the bells and whistles 
that do not require governance or that are clerical.

[*] By-the-way, many of the properties claimed of DNS with regard to it 
being a system of global unique identifiers do not hold up under 
scrutiny.  The main way that DNS names fail is that they do not have 
strong temporal invariance - DNS names often change meaning over time. 
See my note on this at 
http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/nrc_presentation_july_11_2001.ppt

		--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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Thu Apr  3 20:59:34 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Apr 2008 00:59:34 -0000
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <00b401c895c7$519eeee0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080404005934.5667.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

PS:

>We seem to be able to run international telecommunications, air
>transport, shipping, sport, and a number of other functions perfectly
>well without any single government having specific unequal rights.

Except that none of them have a chokepoint analgous to the DNS root,
and in many cases there's national regulators imposing rules at a
level of detail that few Internet users would like.  (Compare the
process of setting up a web hosting company with the process of
setting up a telephone company.)

Look, I am no fan of ICANN, as should be clear to anyone who followed
my stint on the ICANN ALAC.  But if you want to replace them, the
issue isn't that they're not "legitimate", it's that they're
incompetent.  Registrars collapse, and ICANN first denies for a year
that it's their problem, then waves lawyers at them until Godaddy
finally steps in and does something.  Users want domains in their own
languages, ICANN can't even use the limited specs the IETF has
offered, much less address issues of whether, e.g., Verisign has a
prior claim to the Chinese translation of .COM.  Registrars do front
running and speculation in obvious violation of their ICANN contracts,
the ICANN board will only foist the issue off on yet another commitee
and hope it goes away.

If you want to replace ICANN, forget about legitimacy, and think hard
about competence.  Offer an actual better alternative, and then you
have a chance of getting someone's attention.

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  3 20:59:21 2008
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:59:21 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080404004231.1518.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080404004231.1518.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <47F57D69.4050404@cavebear.com>

John Levine wrote:

> Well, OK.  Now, could you remind us of what the plan is to persuade
> people that that your IANA and root is preferable to the one that the
> existing root servers offer?

The same way that Google does it - money.

There is a considerable amount of money that can be made by doing data 
mining of the query stream that hits root and TLD servers.

That makes the following approach possible:

A person starts up a new system of roots - this does not require a very 
large investment, particularly considering the start up load will be light.

That person then tells edge ISPs (the kind that connect to users and 
small businesses, many of which are running on very thin margins) that 
cash payouts will be made to any ISP that resolves its queries through 
this new root system.

Given that any ISP that doesn't like the new root provider can switch 
back to the legacy root in an instant, don't you think that if the 
amount of money offered were large enough that ISPs would consider 
switching?

		--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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Apr  3 21:52:25 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:52:25 +1100
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080404005934.5667.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <00e601c895f6$8fde8ec0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

John just so its clear -

I don’t want to replace ICANN and have never suggested that- I think the
structure is good in general for what they do but at times they don't act to
their strengths.

I just want them to take appropriate actions so that they can be seen as a
truly international organisation. At the moment they appear to be the tool
of one government. When I use the word legitimacy that's what Im talking
about.

Only ICANN can act to remove itself from the stigma associated with
reporting to one government alone.



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: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
> Sent: 04 April 2008 12:00
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: ian.peter at ianpeter.com
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> PS:
> 
> >We seem to be able to run international telecommunications, air
> >transport, shipping, sport, and a number of other functions perfectly
> >well without any single government having specific unequal rights.
> 
> Except that none of them have a chokepoint analgous to the DNS root,
> and in many cases there's national regulators imposing rules at a
> level of detail that few Internet users would like.  (Compare the
> process of setting up a web hosting company with the process of
> setting up a telephone company.)
> 
> Look, I am no fan of ICANN, as should be clear to anyone who followed
> my stint on the ICANN ALAC.  But if you want to replace them, the
> issue isn't that they're not "legitimate", it's that they're
> incompetent.  Registrars collapse, and ICANN first denies for a year
> that it's their problem, then waves lawyers at them until Godaddy
> finally steps in and does something.  Users want domains in their own
> languages, ICANN can't even use the limited specs the IETF has
> offered, much less address issues of whether, e.g., Verisign has a
> prior claim to the Chinese translation of .COM.  Registrars do front
> running and speculation in obvious violation of their ICANN contracts,
> the ICANN board will only foist the issue off on yet another commitee
> and hope it goes away.
> 
> If you want to replace ICANN, forget about legitimacy, and think hard
> about competence.  Offer an actual better alternative, and then you
> have a chance of getting someone's attention.
> 
> R's,
> John
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1357 - Release Date:
> 03/04/2008 10:48
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1357 - Release Date: 03/04/2008
10:48
 

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

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


From icggov at johnlevine.com  Thu Apr  3 23:03:03 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 4 Apr 2008 03:03:03 -0000
Subject: [governance] Data mining the root, was NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <47F57D69.4050404@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <20080404030303.35499.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>There is a considerable amount of money that can be made by doing data 
>mining of the query stream that hits root and TLD servers.

I agree with you about TLD server traffic, but I'm dubious about the
root.

As I understand it, the majority of traffic to the root is junk,
largely due to a Microsoft misfeature that makes some Windows boxes
try to update the root whenever their DNS setup is configured.  Beyond
that is a lot of traffic looking for typo domains.  Traffic to .COM
would be plenty interesting, but since the TTL on NS records in the
root is two days, you're only going to see a tiny trickle of the
traffic for real TLDs.  I suppose you could cut down the TTL to see
more of the traffic, but that's going to have performance issues for
the clients.

In any event what you want to see is the stream of DNS lookups, not
just the small fraction that percolates up to the root.  If you want
to buy that, there's far better ways to do so than by trying to sell
an alternate root.

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  4 10:44:21 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:44:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] nominations for the new MAG
Message-ID: <47F63EC5.5030302@rits.org.br>

Dear Markus,

The Latin-American and Caribbean Civil Society Caucus on the WSIS
process, through its electronic forum "alc-cmsi", has carried out a
nomination process for the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) which
culminated with a secure online voting process carried out between March
28 and April 02. I had the honor to be the facilitator of the process
(reason why I did not participate as candidate).

The electoral college included 65 people representing nearly all civil
society organizations in the region regularly involved with the WSIS
process, most of them since the beginning of it.

It was the LA&C caucus' decision to send the secretariat the list of the
first five of the names chosen in that electoral process, which I
include below, in decreasing order of voters' preferences:

Valeria Betancourt (Ecuador) - valeriab at apc.org
Raul Echeberría (Uruguay) - raul at lacnic.net
Graciela Selaimen (Brazil) - graciela at rits.org.br
Patrick Attié (Haiti) - patrick.attie at esih.edu
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza (Brazil) - caffsouza at gmail.com

The LA&C caucus has asked me to forward this message to the Civil
Society Internet Governance Caucus (CSIGC) as well, to help their
nominating committee in drafting their global list, and trusts the
wishes of the LA&C caucus will be taken into account in the final choice
of civil society representatives.

Fraternal regards

--c.a.

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor executivo, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor)
conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no 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 Apr  4 16:42:49 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:42:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <005401c8953b$ef58ea50$ce0abef0$@net>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <005401c8953b$ef58ea50$ce0abef0$@net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90182068D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

There are many viable alternatives. 

You may be confusing the JPA with the IANA contract, as many do.

One is for the US to complete the transition to an improved, more
accountable ICANN. (the IGP proposal, if you will)

Another is for the US to create a club of other trusted govts that it
shares oversight authority with (the Burr-Cade proposal). 

I could go on, but don't confuse Bush admin. stubborness and a small
sector of DC-based interest groups as intrinsic aspects of physical
reality. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:37 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; 'John Levine'
> Subject: RE: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> > I think you're confusing "legitimacy" with acceptance based on a
lack
> > of any feasible alternative.
> 
> Oh no. "The only viable alternative" - and for all the discussion
there's
> still no feasible alternative, except in theory / as a
> gedankenexperiment..
> is quite enough to confer legitimacy.  Legitimate, illegitimate,
whatever
> -
> trying to uproot this without a viable alternative in place to replace
it,
> one that wont get mired in the same set of issues we currently face
(only
> spread across a much broader canvas) is going to fail.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  4 16:45:56 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:45:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820508@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820690@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Bill: you're right, the word "lazy" was just wrong. But we appear to
agree that the words "prone to inertia in the absence of strong
leadership from their political superiors" was correct. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:02 AM
> To: Milton L Mueller; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> Hi Milton,
> 
> Agree with most of your post, but one comment.
> 
> On 4/3/08 5:25 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> > The answer should be obvious: NTIA is not looking for information
about
> what
> > needs to be done, but seeking confirmation of its prior tendency to
do
> > nothing. Government agencies, in the absence of strong leadership
from
> their
> > political superiors, are lazy and prone to inertia. NTIA is not
going to
> take
> > any initiatives on its own and clearly the lame-duck Bush Presidency
has
> no
> > vision or plan in this area. The US is reasonably comfortable with
the
> status
> > quo and won't move until someone makes them very uncomfortable.
> 
> Saying the problem is laziness is equivalent to the standard practice
of
> attributing failed international negotiations to a lack of "political
> will."
> There are of course structural forces at work that constrain the space
for
> movement.  The US has a strong society and an institutionally weak
state
> (save in the military sphere).  NTIA's Office of International Affairs
is
> just nine mostly mid-level people (all of them women, coincidentally),
3
> of
> whom have any involvement in ICANN matters.  They work for a Commerce
Sec.
> and administration committed to the Alfred E. Neuman school of
economic
> policymaking, and are down the street from a multiplicity of massive
> companies, industry associations and government agencies, plus think
tanks
> and CSOs, all of whom oppose sharing sovereignty.  You know all this,
so
> why
> dump on "lazy bureaucrats"?  You can't really believe that if NTIA
> staffers
> just pulled up their socks and sat up straighter they could tell all
the
> assembled forces for the status quo, sorry, suck it up, ICANN goes
free
> into
> the wild because we think it's a good idea that might make IGP and
some
> non-voters in distant lands happy?
> 
> > community and even ICANN itself is clearly unhappy with its role,
and
> anyone
> > with half a brain knows that it is not a austainable position in the
> long
> > term.
> 
> In the long run we're all dead, so that's not much comfort.  Prior to
> that,
> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
meat
> to
> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  4 16:50:19 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:50:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com>
References: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

I am getting a little concerned about this apparent intimidation and
fear of the nationalist forces in the US when it comes to Internet
governance. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an Obama
Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September 2009.

That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my
grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:55 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
> 
> 
> On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
> >
> > In the long run we're all dead,
> 
> that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.
> 
> > so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
> > I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
> > anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
> > meat to
> > right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
> 
> so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures
> that long?
> 
> 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 mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  4 16:59:40 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:59:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425B92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <C419B05D.10AD4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <67AC9F16-D29F-417A-8FAA-1EC0099E9C38@psg.com> <60E3507D-1EC3-4C05-AFD5-D8ABB7356A34@internet.law.pro> A<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425B92@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820699@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

> The role of the JPA is overestimated in the debate. I fully supported to
> terminate the JPA as soon as possible and I supported also ICANNs
> statement. But if it is terminated it does not change things too much. It
> would be an important symbolic act and stimulate self-confidence of
> numerous constituenices, involved in thre broad ICANN community. And it
> could create unexpetced positive side-effetcs which can come from reduced
> self-censorship of decision makers within the various constituencies. And
> it would be something like win-win. It would cost nothing to the US
> administration. A clever new USA administration could turn this into a big
> public and communication success telling the world that the USA becomes
> more open to international concerns.

Good points, Wolfgang, about the lack of a real US national interest in the JPA, it is very close to my own position, and why I am optimistic the JPA will end in 2009 if ICANN makes the right structural changes. 

But I think you overstate "the light handedness" of the JPA. The JPA is an act of delegation from USG and while I agree with you that the US gains little meaningful benefit from it, the main obstacle to getting rid of it are the IPR interests who think they can leverage the USG/ICANN nexus to gain more regulatory control over the internet. Or any other stray interest group (e.g., registrars and the VeriSign case) who think they need a mommy to cry to whenever ICANN does something they don't like.

 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  4 17:27:05 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:27:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <16C33C97-4242-4949-8810-249CF0E909B9@psg.com>

Hi,

I don't think it was me putting 50 USD on the table.

Then again i think McBush is going win no matter which of Frick or  
Frack wins the Democratic nomination.  but I will buy you a pizza and  
a beer (wouldn't wine be better?) if the US frees ICANN from the JPA  
in 2009.  Not a bet, just a celebration.

a.



On 4 Apr 2008, at 22:50, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I am getting a little concerned about this apparent intimidation and
> fear of the nationalist forces in the US when it comes to Internet
> governance. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an  
> Obama
> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September  
> 2009.
>
> That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my
> grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:55 AM
>> To: Governance Caucus
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>>
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> In the long run we're all dead,
>>
>> that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.
>>
>>> so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
>>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
>>> meat to
>>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>>
>> so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures
>> that long?
>>
>> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Apr  4 18:17:14 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:17:14 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
Message-ID: <s7f670bd.007@gwia203.syr.edu>

Can I play too? 

I'd bet on a 'study' of the issue if Obama by 010, a global coalition on
cybersecurity and ICANN if McCain, and Gore making a comeback to
reinvent the Internet with an environmental consciousness if Clinton II
; )

Ok the last is a stretch.  

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> avri at psg.com 04/04/08 5:27 PM >>>
Hi,

I don't think it was me putting 50 USD on the table.

Then again i think McBush is going win no matter which of Frick or  
Frack wins the Democratic nomination.  but I will buy you a pizza and  
a beer (wouldn't wine be better?) if the US frees ICANN from the JPA  
in 2009.  Not a bet, just a celebration.

a.



On 4 Apr 2008, at 22:50, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I am getting a little concerned about this apparent intimidation and
> fear of the nationalist forces in the US when it comes to Internet
> governance. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an  
> Obama
> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September  
> 2009.
>
> That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my
> grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:55 AM
>> To: Governance Caucus
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>>
>>
>> On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
>>>
>>> In the long run we're all dead,
>>
>> that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.
>>
>>> so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
>>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
>>> meat to
>>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>>
>> so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures
>> that long?
>>
>> 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 suresh at hserus.net  Fri Apr  4 22:08:23 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:08:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C41A3F8B.10AF2%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <E05AF7F5-74EB-44E1-A5C0-F7AAA36C9654@psg.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080405020823.GA8804@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [04/04/08 16:50 -0400]:
>That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my
>grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate.

beer is cheaper than water out there.. a pression of cardinal doesnt really
cost that much :)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Apr  4 22:18:14 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:18:14 -0700
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90182068D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <005401c8953b$ef58ea50$ce0abef0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90182068D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080405021814.GB8804@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [04/04/08 16:42 -0400]:
>I could go on, but don't confuse Bush admin. stubborness and a small
>sector of DC-based interest groups as intrinsic aspects of physical
>reality. 

oh no. they simply influence it. 

Beltway lobbyists never go away, election or not.  And mid level
apparatchiki (aka NTIA) tend to stay on between administrations

So what changes?

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

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


From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu  Fri Apr  4 22:31:00 2008
From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 22:31:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080405021814.GB8804@hserus.net>
References: <096301c89520$ec101c30$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080403022639.79213.qmail@simone.iecc.com> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820509@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <005401c8953b$ef58ea50$ce0abef0$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD90182068D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080405021814.GB8804@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <76E784A7-96A4-49A6-BF50-8574A85E8825@maxwell.syr.edu>

Actually, they don't stay on.  Even upper middle-level positions in  
the US government are now political and subject to change, and which  
lobbyists can influence what similarly change.


On Apr 4, 2008, at 22:18, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:

> Milton L Mueller [04/04/08 16:42 -0400]:
>> I could go on, but don't confuse Bush admin. stubborness and a small
>> sector of DC-based interest groups as intrinsic aspects of physical
>> reality.
>
> oh no. they simply influence it.
> Beltway lobbyists never go away, election or not.  And mid level
> apparatchiki (aka NTIA) tend to stay on between administrations
>
> So what changes?
>
> 	srs
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr  4 23:46:44 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 23:46:44 -0400
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080404005934.5667.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <00b401c895c7$519eeee0$8b00a8c0@IAN> <20080404005934.5667.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206A6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:icggov at johnlevine.com]
> >We seem to be able to run international telecommunications, air
> >transport, shipping, sport, and a number of other functions perfectly
> >well without any single government having specific unequal rights.
> 
> Except that none of them have a chokepoint analgous to the DNS root,

Factually wrong. International telephone country codes need to be
globally coordinated, just as the DNS root zone does. The difference is
that global number coordination via ITU emerged bottom up via peer
negotiations rather than top-down and therefore was in no position to
regulate via contract what the assignees of their international codes
do.

> (Compare the
> process of setting up a web hosting company with the process of
> setting up a telephone company.)

We're getting there, John. Give us time. :-(

And setting up telephone companies that rely on others' infrastructures
is probably a lot easier than you imagine. 

> Look, I am no fan of ICANN, as should be clear to anyone who followed
> my stint on the ICANN ALAC.  But if you want to replace them, the
> issue isn't that they're not "legitimate", it's that they're
> incompetent.  Registrars collapse, and ICANN first denies for a year

Incompetent at what? is my response. As usual a techie perspective on
this completely misses the political dynamics that drive what gets done
and what doesn't. ICANN seems remarkably competent at surviving and
enlarging its budget, which has meant achieving legitimacy and support
among governments, ccTLDs, brand owners, and marginally, buying itself a
toothless ALAC. If you think legitimacy is irrelevant it's no wonder you
can't make sense of its lack of attention to mundane regulatory issues
that force it to make hard choices that will only alienate some key
stakeholders. 

> that it's their problem, then waves lawyers at them until Godaddy
> finally steps in and does something.  Users want domains in their own
> languages, ICANN can't even use the limited specs the IETF has
> offered, much less address issues of whether, e.g., Verisign has a
> prior claim to the Chinese translation of .COM.  Registrars do front
> running and speculation in obvious violation of their ICANN contracts,
> the ICANN board will only foist the issue off on yet another commitee
> and hope it goes away.
> 
> If you want to replace ICANN, forget about legitimacy, and think hard
> about competence.  Offer an actual better alternative, and then you
> have a chance of getting someone's attention.


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

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


From icggov at johnlevine.com  Sat Apr  5 00:57:37 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 5 Apr 2008 04:57:37 -0000
Subject: [governance] phones vs. the Internet, was NTIA announcement on
 JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206A6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080405045737.11212.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>> Except that none of them have a chokepoint analgous to the DNS root,
>
>Factually wrong. International telephone country codes need to be
>globally coordinated, just as the DNS root zone does.

Hi, Milt.  Actually, it's factually right.  The phone system is not
one system, it's a bunch of national or regional systems connected
together with gateways, more analogous to the way e-mail worked in the
1990s than the way the Internet works.  The numbering plan is
currently mostly consistent around the world, but unlike the Internet,
different countries have different incompatible hardware and software,
and there have been plenty of inconsistent dialing plans, shortcut
numbers, countries with wierdo rules for international dialing, you
name it.  We don't even have consistent dialing in New York and
Vermont.  The signalling in North America is completely incompatible
with the signalling in Europe or South America, with gateways at the
border to glue them together.  A coordinated numbering space is merely
a convenience to the telephone system, not essential like consistent
IP and DNS addressing are for the Internet.

>> Look, I am no fan of ICANN, as should be clear to anyone who followed
>> my stint on the ICANN ALAC.  But if you want to replace them, the
>> issue isn't that they're not "legitimate", it's that they're
>> incompetent.  Registrars collapse, and ICANN first denies for a year
>
>Incompetent at what?

At its nominal public benefit mission, of course.  As I said, ICANN is
perceived as legitimate now (wow, we agree on something) and arguments
that it has to do something to become legitimate are silly.  But it's
incompetent at managing registrars, adding new TLDs, blah blah, which
is why I said:

>> If you want to replace ICANN, forget about legitimacy, and think hard
>> about competence.  Offer an actual better alternative, and then you
>> have a chance of getting someone's attention.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  5 02:04:17 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 09:04:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] phones vs. the Internet, was NTIA announcement on
 JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080405045737.11212.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206A6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <20080405045737.11212.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804042304m38280ac0y1c57c0055957b2f8@mail.gmail.com>

<haiku warning>

On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 7:57 AM, John Levine <icggov at johnlevine.com> wrote:
> >> Except that none of them have a chokepoint analgous to the DNS root,
>  >
>  >Factually wrong. International telephone country codes need to be
>  >globally coordinated, just as the DNS root zone does.
>
>  Hi, Milt.  Actually, it's factually right.  The phone system is not
>  one system, it's a bunch of national or regional systems connected
>  together with gateways, more analogous to the way e-mail worked in the
>  1990s than the way the Internet works.  The numbering plan is
>  currently mostly consistent around the world, but unlike the Internet,
>  different countries have different incompatible hardware and software,
>  and there have been plenty of inconsistent dialing plans, shortcut
>  numbers, countries with wierdo rules for international dialing, you
>  name it.  We don't even have consistent dialing in New York and
>  Vermont.  The signalling in North America is completely incompatible
>  with the signalling in Europe or South America, with gateways at the
>  border to glue them together.  A coordinated numbering space is merely
>  a convenience to the telephone system, not essential like consistent
>  IP and DNS addressing are for the Internet.


That is correct, sir
plus no rootzone lookup, yes?
I'll take the under


</haiku warning>

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Apr  5 18:49:23 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:49:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] phones vs. the Internet, was NTIA announcement on
 JPA
In-Reply-To: <20080405045737.11212.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206A6@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <20080405045737.11212.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Hi, Milt.  Actually, it's factually right.  The phone system is not
> one system, it's a bunch of national or regional systems connected
> together with gateways, more analogous to the way e-mail worked in the

And what is the Internet if not a bunch of local, national, regional or
corporate data networks (often using different standards, from 802.11x
to frame relay to Ethernet to others) connected together with "gateways"
called routers and proxy servers running TCP/IP? The only difference (as
I said in my initial message) is that TCP/IP was designed to connect
multiple networks from the outset and the interconnections of the
telephone system evolved bottom up. 

But both have a chokepoint for global coordination. Here's the crucial
difference: The Internet's chokepoint was institutionalized in 1998-9 in
a way that was designed to leverage top-level technical coordination for
regulatory purposes. The telephone system's was not. So the relevant
difference is more political, economic and institutional, not technical.
That was my point.

> currently mostly consistent around the world, but unlike the Internet,
> different countries have different incompatible hardware and software,

Ah, I see, there is no incompatible hardware and software on the
Internet. That is such good news! I will remember that the next time I
can't download a video file because I'm using Quicktime instead of
Windows Media Player, or the next time I can't use my European phone on
an American mobile network.

> and there have been plenty of inconsistent dialing plans, shortcut
> numbers, countries with wierdo rules for international dialing, you
> name it.  We don't even have consistent dialing in New York and

Sounds like NATs, doesn't it?

> The signalling in North America is completely incompatible
> with the signalling in Europe or South America, with gateways at the
> border to glue them together.

One word: SS7. Physical signaling uses different voltages but is not
"incompatible" because it (obviously) interconnects. Different countries
use different electrical standards, just as the various devices
connected to the internet do. 

The point you're making about the heterogeneity of legacy voice networks
is not really "incompatible" with mine. I am merely pointing out that
the Internet is not that different from telephone system in that both
have a regime for global coordination. 

>  A coordinated numbering space is merely
> a convenience to the telephone system, not essential like consistent
> IP and DNS addressing are for the Internet.

Chuckle. I am wondering what makes universal interconnection a mere
"convenience" for fixed voice and mobile telephony and "essential" for
the Internet. When the Taiwanese cables went out in 2006 it was
interesting to see how the financial system and general public was more
upset about the lack of telephone connectivity than Internet
connectivity. (That of course changes as convergence proceeds and the
internet carries more telephone and financial traffic)

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

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


From icggov at johnlevine.com  Sun Apr  6 02:41:14 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 6 Apr 2008 06:41:14 -0000
Subject: [governance] phones vs. the Internet, was NTIA announcement on
 JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018206C5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080406064114.4226.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>> Hi, Milt.  Actually, it's factually right.  The phone system is not
>> one system, it's a bunch of national or regional systems connected
>> together with gateways, more analogous to the way e-mail worked in the
>
>And what is the Internet if not a bunch of local, national, regional or
>corporate data networks (often using different standards, from 802.11x
>to frame relay to Ethernet to others) connected together with "gateways"
>called routers and proxy servers running TCP/IP?

The architectures are quite different.  At the IP and TCP levels the
Internet is completely homogeneous, with the link layers being
abstracted below that.  As I pointed out in my previous message, at
the analogous levels the international phone system is not, and it
does not have a global naming database analogous to DNS.  (E.164 is a
document, not a database.)

If you can't be bothered to learn how the phone system works before
spouting off, there's not much we can do about it.

>But both have a chokepoint for global coordination.

You know, repeating something doesn't make it true.

>One word: SS7.

Two words: en-bloc and compelled signalling.  Sheesh.

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  6 11:50:50 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 00:50:50 +0900
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
In-Reply-To: <20080403094349.41D16A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080403094349.41D16A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>

>
>Hi All
>
>The nomcom for selecting IGC nominees for the 
>MAG has started functioning with the following 
>members. (It will begin deliberating on actual 
>selection after the 8th when submission of 
>nominations close.)
>


So anyone who wants to be considered by the 
nomcom should be nominating/self nominating now?

Travelling last week and might have missed email 
about this, the only announcement I've seen about 
the process was in an old thread, said in part:


At 4:01 PM +0530 3/24/08, Parminder wrote:
>
>Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 1st.
>
>Nomination close - April 8th
>
>Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th.
>
>Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th
>


Where are nominations sent, what information's needed etc

(Dear nomcom, please accept this this email as a self-nomination!)

Thanks,

Adam




>Gurumurthy K
>Ian Peter
>Robert Guerra
>Rudi Rusdiah
>Hakikur Rahman
>
>They were asked to elect a (voting) chair among 
>themselves, with nomcom experience being the 
>main criterion. They have elected Robert Guerra 
>as the nomcom chair. Please help them to do 
>their work by sharing your views on the criteria 
>for selecting IGC nominees for the MAG.
>
>Also, to remind once again that nominations, 
>including self-nominations, for being considered 
>by the nomcom for selection of IGC nominees for 
>the MAG have to sent in by the 8th of April. 
>Nominations can be sent to the nomcom chair, 
>Robert Guerra and the co-coordinators. Thanks.
>
>Parminder
>
>(I am still in areas with no connectivity ­ this 
>was a brief interlude while passing through a 
>connectivity area. I will be connected 6th 
>afternoon onwards. )
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  6 11:51:59 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 00:51:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF draft programme and questionnaire for people
 wishing to organize workshops
Message-ID: <p06240809c41ea039f14d@[192.168.1.193]>

IFG website's been updated:

new draft programme outline for the Hyderabad meeting. Draft but 
includes deadline for workshops etc. (reports of Rio workshops 
advisable.) The file's attached and online at 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/hydera/DraftProgramme.Hyderabad-draft.26.03.2008.pdf>

And there's a questionnaire for workshop organizers 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops08/WorkshopTemplate.v1.doc> to 
complete and return by April 30.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DraftProgramme.Hyderabad-draft.26.03.2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 94264 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/dbc16f8e/attachment.pdf>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr  6 13:14:22 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 22:44:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <20080406171452.A1FE3E23C1@smtp3.electricembers.net>



> So anyone who wants to be considered by the
> nomcom should be nominating/self nominating now?

Yes. 

> Where are nominations sent, what information's needed etc

To the nomcom chair Robert Guerra and the co-coordinators. Abt the info
needed pl see my email of 30th last, also enclosed. 

> (Dear nomcom, please accept this this email as a self-nomination!)
>

Nomcom chair/ members will respond to this, but they are likely to ask for
greater information as per my enclosed email.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
> 
> >
> >Hi All
> >
> >The nomcom for selecting IGC nominees for the
> >MAG has started functioning with the following
> >members. (It will begin deliberating on actual
> >selection after the 8th when submission of
> >nominations close.)
> >
> 
> 
> So anyone who wants to be considered by the
> nomcom should be nominating/self nominating now?
> 
> Travelling last week and might have missed email
> about this, the only announcement I've seen about
> the process was in an old thread, said in part:
> 
> 
> At 4:01 PM +0530 3/24/08, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 1st.
> >
> >Nomination close - April 8th
> >
> >Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th.
> >
> >Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th
> >
> 
> 
> Where are nominations sent, what information's needed etc
> 
> (Dear nomcom, please accept this this email as a self-nomination!)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Gurumurthy K
> >Ian Peter
> >Robert Guerra
> >Rudi Rusdiah
> >Hakikur Rahman
> >
> >They were asked to elect a (voting) chair among
> >themselves, with nomcom experience being the
> >main criterion. They have elected Robert Guerra
> >as the nomcom chair. Please help them to do
> >their work by sharing your views on the criteria
> >for selecting IGC nominees for the MAG.
> >
> >Also, to remind once again that nominations,
> >including self-nominations, for being considered
> >by the nomcom for selection of IGC nominees for
> >the MAG have to sent in by the 8th of April.
> >Nominations can be sent to the nomcom chair,
> >Robert Guerra and the co-coordinators. Thanks.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >(I am still in areas with no connectivity - this
> >was a brief interlude while passing through a
> >connectivity area. I will be connected 6th
> >afternoon onwards. )
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:47:14 +0530
Size: 11792
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080406/52c095c8/attachment.eml>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Apr  6 21:11:39 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:11:39 +1000
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <01cc01c8984c$5deed9d0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Hi Adam,

Expect a post from Robert Guerra here tomorrow with full details of the call
for nominations. Yes, it's open now but we do need bio details etc as well
as names.

Also please note that the deadline for nominations will be extended to April
13

Ian Peter
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: 07 April 2008 01:51
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
> 
> >
> >Hi All
> >
> >The nomcom for selecting IGC nominees for the
> >MAG has started functioning with the following
> >members. (It will begin deliberating on actual
> >selection after the 8th when submission of
> >nominations close.)
> >
> 
> 
> So anyone who wants to be considered by the
> nomcom should be nominating/self nominating now?
> 
> Travelling last week and might have missed email
> about this, the only announcement I've seen about
> the process was in an old thread, said in part:
> 
> 
> At 4:01 PM +0530 3/24/08, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 1st.
> >
> >Nomination close - April 8th
> >
> >Nomcom confers between 9th and 16th.
> >
> >Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th
> >
> 
> 
> Where are nominations sent, what information's needed etc
> 
> (Dear nomcom, please accept this this email as a self-nomination!)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >Gurumurthy K
> >Ian Peter
> >Robert Guerra
> >Rudi Rusdiah
> >Hakikur Rahman
> >
> >They were asked to elect a (voting) chair among
> >themselves, with nomcom experience being the
> >main criterion. They have elected Robert Guerra
> >as the nomcom chair. Please help them to do
> >their work by sharing your views on the criteria
> >for selecting IGC nominees for the MAG.
> >
> >Also, to remind once again that nominations,
> >including self-nominations, for being considered
> >by the nomcom for selection of IGC nominees for
> >the MAG have to sent in by the 8th of April.
> >Nominations can be sent to the nomcom chair,
> >Robert Guerra and the co-coordinators. Thanks.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >(I am still in areas with no connectivity ­ this
> >was a brief interlude while passing through a
> >connectivity area. I will be connected 6th
> >afternoon onwards. )
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date:
> 06/04/2008 11:12
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.8/1362 - Release Date: 06/04/2008
11:12
 

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

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


From guru at itforchange.net  Mon Apr  7 01:51:32 2008
From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:21:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations .... Call for
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <20080403094349.41D16A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net> <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <47F9B664.30302@itforchange.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/319ce6fb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Mon Apr  7 03:58:29 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:58:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your keyboard
Message-ID: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com>

All, well and good to say the information collected does not identify
the user .... That is until the US regime and their axis of pax
americana cronies in the EU - ostensibly fighting world terrorism -
FORCE the ISP to disclose the information that it swears it does not
collect  the one that will link the tap-tap-tap to the fingers that
did the tapping.

Rui
___________________________________________________


Every Click You Make
Internet Providers Quietly Test Expanded Tracking of Web Use to Target
Advertising
By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 4, 2008; Page D01

for the full article,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040304052.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter


The online behavior of a small but growing number of computer users in
the United States is monitored by their Internet service providers,
who have access to every click and keystroke that comes down the line.

The companies harvest the stream of data for clues to a person's
interests, making money from advertisers who use the information to
target their online pitches.

The practice represents a significant expansion in the ability to
track a household's Web use because it taps into Internet connections,
and critics liken it to a phone company listening in on conversations.
But the companies involved say customers' privacy is protected because
no personally identifying details are released.

The extent of the practice is difficult to gauge because some service
providers involved have declined to discuss their practice


s. Many Web surfers, moreover, probably have little idea they are
being monitored.

But at least 100,000 U.S. customers are tracked this way, and service
providers have been testing it with as many as 10 percent of U.S.
customers, according to tech companies involved in the data
collection.

Although common tracking systems, known as cookies, have counted a
consumer's visits to a network of sites, the new monitoring, known as
"deep-packet inspection," enables a far wider view -- every Web page
visited, every e-mail sent and every search entered. Every bit of data
is divided into packets -- like electronic envelopes -- that the
system can access and analyze for content.

"You don't want the phone company tapping your phone calls, and in the
same way you don't want your ISP tapping your Web traffic," said Ari
Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an advocacy
group. "There's a fear here that a user's ISP is going to betray them
and turn their information over to a third party."

In fact, newly proposed Federal Trade Commission guidelines for
behavioral advertising have been outpaced by the technology and do not
address the practice directly. Privacy advocates are preparing to
present to Congress their concerns that the practice is done without
consumer consent and that too little is known about whether such
systems adequately protect personal information.

Meanwhile, many online publishers say the next big growth in
advertising will emerge from efforts to offer ads based not on the
content of a Web page, but on knowing who is looking at it. That, of
course, means gathering more information about consumers.

Advocates of deep-packet inspection see it as a boon for all involved.
Advertisers can better target their pitches. Consumers will see more
relevant ads. Service providers who hand over consumer data can share
in advertising revenues. And Web sites can make more money from online
advertising, a $20 billion industry that is growing rapidly.

With the service provider involved in collecting consumer data, "there
is access to a broader spectrum of the Web traffic -- it's
significantly more valuable," said Derek Maxson, chief technology
officer of Front Porch, a company that collects such data from
millions of users in Asia and is working with a number of U.S. service
providers.

Consider, say, the Boston Celtics Web site. Based on its content, it
posts ads for products a Celtics fan might be interested in: Adidas, a
Boston hotel and so on.

CONTINUES


________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr  7 04:05:05 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:35:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your
 keyboard
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net>

Rui Correia wrote:

> All, well and good to say the information collected does not identify
> the user .... That is until the US regime and their axis of pax
> americana cronies in the EU - ostensibly fighting world terrorism -
> FORCE the ISP to disclose the information that it swears it does not
> collect  the one that will link the tap-tap-tap to the fingers that
> did the tapping.

Well, that's great. The axis of pax America cronies will be very well
balanced by the axis of civil society users of inflammatory language ranging
from moveon.org in the USA to various others.

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

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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Mon Apr  7 05:09:24 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:09:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
Message-ID: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>

[Posted on the BIND user's mailing list.]
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: uche <uraniumore235 at hotmail.com>
Subject: ICANN or IANA
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 15:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
Size: 5129
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/e4a6fba8/attachment.eml>

From avri at psg.com  Mon Apr  7 05:53:28 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:53:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com>


Depending on what meaning someone attaches to the word "own"  it could  
be an entertaining question.  in a distributed virtual on-line world,  
what does ownership signify?

and of course the list of possible owners could be intriguing

- ICANN or IANA (as was asked)

- it is a world resource
- no one own it
- the US government owns it

and maybe

- the question has no answer.

a.



On 7 Apr 2008, at 11:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> [Posted on the BIND user's mailing list.]
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> I'd like know who owns the Domain Name System ? I am not sure if it is
> ICANN or IANA ? Can you disentangle my confusion....
>
> Thanks,
> Uchenna
>
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 07:29:15 2008
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 07:29:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>
 <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>

In reality, IANA does not exist. It is a group of functions that is the subject of a contract between the USG and ICANN. So that portion of the question is moot.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:53 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do
> :-)
>
>
> Depending on what meaning someone attaches to the word "own"  it could
> be an entertaining question.  in a distributed virtual on-line world,
> what does ownership signify?
>
> and of course the list of possible owners could be intriguing
>
> - ICANN or IANA (as was asked)
>
> - it is a world resource
> - no one own it
> - the US government owns it
>
> and maybe
>
> - the question has no answer.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 7 Apr 2008, at 11:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > [Posted on the BIND user's mailing list.]
> > ____________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I'd like know who owns the Domain Name System ? I am not sure if it
> is
> > ICANN or IANA ? Can you disentangle my confusion....
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Uchenna
> >
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 07:45:16 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:45:16 -0300
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your
 keyboard
In-Reply-To: <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net>
References: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com> <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net>
Message-ID: <47FA094C.2090807@rits.org.br>

Unfortunately not, Suresh... And certainly the axis of pax americana 
does not need more defenders. They have abundant supply of these, either 
by force (their historically proven preference) or otherwise.

--c.a.

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Rui Correia wrote:
> 
>> All, well and good to say the information collected does not identify
>> the user .... That is until the US regime and their axis of pax
>> americana cronies in the EU - ostensibly fighting world terrorism -
>> FORCE the ISP to disclose the information that it swears it does not
>> collect  the one that will link the tap-tap-tap to the fingers that
>> did the tapping.
> 
> Well, that's great. The axis of pax America cronies will be very well
> balanced by the axis of civil society users of inflammatory language ranging
> from moveon.org in the USA to various others.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Mon Apr  7 08:22:14 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 14:22:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr> <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com>

well, they don't exist in the same way that the IETF doesn't exist.
so in virtuality, they do seem to exist.

and while only a function it has real people, is the subject of  
contracts, has expenses and ...

and would not IANA 'exist'  even if ICANN blinked out of existence?

but we need to be careful otherwise i will get into a patter about  
what it means to 'exist' in the virtual age?

and  on the topic of our list, what does it mean to govern something  
that may exist only as a function?

a.

On 7 Apr 2008, at 13:29, Ray Plzak wrote:
> In reality, IANA does not exist. It is a group of functions that is  
> the subject of a contract between the USG and ICANN. So that portion  
> of the question is moot.
>
> 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 plzak at arin.net  Mon Apr  7 08:35:11 2008
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:35:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>
 <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com>
 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
 <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com>
Message-ID: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>

ICANN has created a staff organization to perform the function that has the same name, but enough splitting hairs. The fundamental issue is one of ownership and I would say that Internet names and numbers do not have ownership but are in the public trust. Certainly there are intellectual property rights associated with the recognized holder of a name and there are rights to the benefits of the services associated with the recognized holder of a number. The value of both is inherent in these rights.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:22 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do
> :-)
>
> well, they don't exist in the same way that the IETF doesn't exist.
> so in virtuality, they do seem to exist.
>
> and while only a function it has real people, is the subject of
> contracts, has expenses and ...
>
> and would not IANA 'exist'  even if ICANN blinked out of existence?
>
> but we need to be careful otherwise i will get into a patter about
> what it means to 'exist' in the virtual age?
>
> and  on the topic of our list, what does it mean to govern something
> that may exist only as a function?
>
> a.
>
> On 7 Apr 2008, at 13:29, Ray Plzak wrote:
> > In reality, IANA does not exist. It is a group of functions that is
> > the subject of a contract between the USG and ICANN. So that portion
> > of the question is moot.
> >
> > 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

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr  7 09:58:29 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 06:58:29 -0700
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your
In-Reply-To: <47FA094C.2090807@rits.org.br>
References: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com> <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net> <47FA094C.2090807@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20080407135829.GD20876@hserus.net>

Carlos Afonso [07/04/08 08:45 -0300]:
> Unfortunately not, Suresh... And certainly the axis of pax americana does 
> not need more defenders. They have abundant supply of these, either by 
> force (their historically proven preference) or otherwise.

Oh, I'm not defending pax americana as much as I'm criticizing its sillier
critics.  I'm quite agnostic about which variety of rabid civil society
proaganda I criticize - butted heads with moveon.org as well as their right
wing equivalents, and the same in other countries where I've lived long
enough to take an interest in local politics.

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

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Apr  7 10:07:27 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:07:27 +0100
Subject: [governance] NOMCOM Nominations: Criteria?
In-Reply-To: <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <20080403094349.41D16A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
 <p06240806c41e9c891411@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <20080407140750.C25ED36B3B1@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi everyone

I'm clear on the (revised) timeline

Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 1st.
Nomination close - April (8th) - extended to April 13th
Nomcom confers between (9th) 13th and 16th.
Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th

And that we should send nominations to the Chair of the Nomcom - 
Robert Guerra - and members? (is there an address or do we just send 
to all five?

Gurumurthy K - guru at itforchange.net
Ian Peter - ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Robert Guerra - rguerra at lists.privaterra.org
Rudi Rusdiah - rusdiah at rad.net.id
Hakikur Rahman - email at hakik.org

And, criteria.. i'm still not sure what info you need - just a bio, 
some motivation statement?

I dragged out info from the first MAG nomination process - 
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igf.shtml

this is the short criteria form we used - if it is useful, maybe 
others can use - i know some folk have already been nominated or 
self-nominated, but for those who haven't, the following might be 
useful, and it may even be useful for those who have already been 
nominated, to sumit some additional info - shall leave that to the nomcom

 >> the nomination process and criteria
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnom.shtml

The nomcom will work until April 18th to prepare a final list of 
candidates. The basic criteria we are using is:
All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS 
activities 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender 
balance 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ...

Additionally: anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. 
self nominations are invited

At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of 
the following:

Name
Name of nominator (or self)
Nationality
Country of Residence
Gender
Short Bio relevant to IG
Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG
Willingness to serve on MAG [if not self-nomination]

If the nomination is not a self-nomination, then the nominator should 
check with the nominated to ensure that she or he is willing to serve.

It would also be useful to indicate that the (self) nominee has the 
ability to handle the additional workload. While the work load is 
uncertain, it will probably involve 1-2 several day meetings in 
Geneva (one is already scheduled May 22-23 2006) and a fair amount of 
email traffic. If the WGIG workload is any indication, there may be 
times, especially as the Athens meeting approaches where this could 
consume at least a day a week.
===

the nomination forms worked quite well - here's an example - rikke 
frank joergensen, nominated by APC at the time:
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml?slice_id=3e640adb2506b8421b3f31232657571b&sh_itm=239a3d630d3a1e51b162c69597e177ad

===

karen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/1b611315/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 10:08:18 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:08:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG Nominations: Criteria?
Message-ID: <20080407140841.3F17636B3BB@mail.gn.apc.org>

** a revised subject line, last message had Nomcom nominations - error **

hi everyone

I'm clear on the (revised) timeline

Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 1st.
Nomination close - April (8th) - extended to April 13th
Nomcom confers between (9th) 13th and 16th.
Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April, 17th

And that we should send nominations to the Chair of the Nomcom - 
Robert Guerra - and members? (is there an address or do we just send 
to all five?

Gurumurthy K - guru at itforchange.net
Ian Peter - ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Robert Guerra - rguerra at lists.privaterra.org
Rudi Rusdiah - rusdiah at rad.net.id
Hakikur Rahman - email at hakik.org

And, criteria.. i'm still not sure what info you need - just a bio, 
some motivation statement?

I dragged out info from the first MAG nomination process - 
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igf.shtml

this is the short criteria form we used - if it is useful, maybe 
others can use - i know some folk have already been nominated or 
self-nominated, but for those who haven't, the following might be 
useful, and it may even be useful for those who have already been 
nominated, to sumit some additional info - shall leave that to the nomcom

 >> the nomination process and criteria
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnom.shtml

The nomcom will work until April 18th to prepare a final list of 
candidates. The basic criteria we are using is:
All candidates must be CS participants in the WSIS and post-WSIS 
activities 2 candidates from each of the 5 regions with gender 
balance 5 additional to balance for skill/knowledge set, age, disability, ...

Additionally: anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. 
self nominations are invited

At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of 
the following:

Name
Name of nominator (or self)
Nationality
Country of Residence
Gender
Short Bio relevant to IG
Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG
Willingness to serve on MAG [if not self-nomination]

If the nomination is not a self-nomination, then the nominator should 
check with the nominated to ensure that she or he is willing to serve.

It would also be useful to indicate that the (self) nominee has the 
ability to handle the additional workload. While the work load is 
uncertain, it will probably involve 1-2 several day meetings in 
Geneva (one is already scheduled May 22-23 2006) and a fair amount of 
email traffic. If the WGIG workload is any indication, there may be 
times, especially as the Athens meeting approaches where this could 
consume at least a day a week.
===

the nomination forms worked quite well - here's an example - rikke 
frank joergensen, nominated by APC at the time:
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml?slice_id=3e640adb2506b8421b3f31232657571b&sh_itm=239a3d630d3a1e51b162c69597e177ad

===

karen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/87d6cc8d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From correia.rui at gmail.com  Mon Apr  7 11:05:37 2008
From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 17:05:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your
In-Reply-To: <20080407135829.GD20876@hserus.net>
References: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net> <47FA094C.2090807@rits.org.br>
	 <20080407135829.GD20876@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <ec8caada0804070805g5d1ba36cgbf97ba9ec4e5b90f@mail.gmail.com>

Suresh

[Apologies to others, but original email WAS about internet governance].

The point is, how safe are we from the likes of these governments,
when information that we have come into contact* is surrendered unto
the authorities, ostensibly under cover of "war on terrorists"? You've
seen Abu Graib, Guantanamo, thousands of emails going missing,
rendition flights, etc.

You might want to read this: "In a just-declassified 2003 memo,
Justice Department lawyer John Yoo said George W. Bush could order
abuse of captives to extract information. But one provocative footnote
said Bush also could ignore constitutional rights while undertaking
domestic military operations",
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/040608a.html,

and: " The release of a five-year-old Justice Department memo
underscores how far the advocates for George W. Bush's unfettered
power were ready to go."
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/040208.html

As for the axis, perhaps in the countries where you have lived long
enough, you might have heard people talking a US invention called the
axis of evil (which by the way, shifts according to convenience and
political expediency). I made a deliberate reference to that axis in
my "axis of pax americana". And if you haven't asked yourself about
the consequences of powerful members of the EU having right-wing
governments at a time when we have a coterie of right-wing lunatics in
Washington, then you should.

But if it makes you feel better by not singling out the US, then, yes,
I concede Zimbabwe, China, and others into that league of rogue
states.

*contact with information: Everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Regards,

Rui

On 07/04/2008, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> Carlos Afonso [07/04/08 08:45 -0300]:
>
> > Unfortunately not, Suresh... And certainly the axis of pax americana does
> not need more defenders. They have abundant supply of these, either by force
> (their historically proven preference) or otherwise.
> >
>
>  Oh, I'm not defending pax americana as much as I'm criticizing its sillier
>  critics.  I'm quite agnostic about which variety of rabid civil society
>  proaganda I criticize - butted heads with moveon.org as well as their right
>  wing equivalents, and the same in other countries where I've lived long
>  enough to take an interest in local politics.
>
>         srs
> ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>  For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
________________________________________________


Rui Correia
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
2 Cutten St
Horison
Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
South Africa
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
_______________
áâãçéêíóôõúç
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr  7 11:18:47 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:18:47 -0700
Subject: [governance] ISP 'listening in' to your tap-tap-tap on your
In-Reply-To: <ec8caada0804070805g5d1ba36cgbf97ba9ec4e5b90f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ec8caada0804070058h152f9ff9o8ebdd6a0bce7aad8@mail.gmail.com> <005a01c89886$18b71370$4a253a50$@net> <47FA094C.2090807@rits.org.br> <20080407135829.GD20876@hserus.net> <ec8caada0804070805g5d1ba36cgbf97ba9ec4e5b90f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080407151847.GB24042@hserus.net>

Rui Correia [07/04/08 17:05 +0200]:
>The point is, how safe are we from the likes of these governments,
>when information that we have come into contact* is surrendered unto
>the authorities, ostensibly under cover of "war on terrorists"? You've
>seen Abu Graib, Guantanamo, thousands of emails going missing,
>rendition flights, etc.

I have seen enough of it. And I have also seen how pointless it is to go
over the top. 

1. The bush administration is on its last legs

2. I've interacted with enough DoJ investigators and other law enforcement,
and seen enough actual cybercrime that impacts ordinary users, that I find
it rather easier to see two sides of an argument. And to believe that yes
there are a lot of people there who are actually out to get real criminals,
not afghan and iraqi peasants with misguided ideas (or even zealots who
fill them with those misguided and dangerous ideas, for their own ends).

Turn your energies to opposing rendition flights, overblown TSA security
measures etc by all means. But you are barking up the wrong tree here with
your comments
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 11:23:36 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:23:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr> <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Ray, 
It is misleading to say that IANA "does not exist" and unless your
intention is to confuse neophytes I would advise you not to continue
that line. To say that "IANA is a group of functions" performed via
contract between USG and ICANNN is more correct but obviously that
explanation contradicts the assertion that the function "does not
exist." 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 7:29 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: [governance] Capacity building: there is still 
> work to do :-)
> 
> In reality, IANA does not exist. It is a group of functions 
> that is the subject of a contract between the USG and ICANN. 
> So that portion of the question is moot.
> 
> Ray
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 5:53 AM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Capacity building: there is still 
> work to do
> > :-)
> >
> >
> > Depending on what meaning someone attaches to the word 
> "own"  it could
> > be an entertaining question.  in a distributed virtual 
> on-line world,
> > what does ownership signify?
> >
> > and of course the list of possible owners could be intriguing
> >
> > - ICANN or IANA (as was asked)
> >
> > - it is a world resource
> > - no one own it
> > - the US government owns it
> >
> > and maybe
> >
> > - the question has no answer.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 7 Apr 2008, at 11:09, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> > > [Posted on the BIND user's mailing list.]
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > I'd like know who owns the Domain Name System ? I am not 
> sure if it
> > is
> > > ICANN or IANA ? Can you disentangle my confusion....
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Uchenna
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 11:55:35 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 11:55:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr> <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
> The fundamental issue is one of ownership and I would say 
> that Internet names and numbers do not have ownership but are 
> in the public trust. 

It depends on whether one is using an _economics_ definition of
"ownership," a legal definition or a political definition. In economic
terms, if you have the exclusive control of a resource, and can exclude
others from it, charge fees for it or otherwise manage its use, then you
"own" it. In this sense, ARIN as a corporate entity "owns" the address
space it allocates, even though it advances an essentially political
claim that it exercises those ownership powers as a "public trust." 

When Ray says that numbers are in the public trust what he means is that
the de facto owner as a matter of policy tries to manage the resource in
the public interest, and therefore severely limits the right of private
users of the resource to gain permanent and exclusive control of them.
This is a political claim. It would be a lot stronger if we knew which
"public" he is referring to and how this transnational public legally
delegated the right to look after its interests to the RIRs (i.e.,
through legislation?) But, see my last paragraph below.

One could also say that "no one owns" the address space in the sense
that the IP standard specifications are a nonproprietary document and
anyone can appropriate and use any IP address they want with no bad
effects, as long as it is inside a private network and the router's
address announcements don't spill out onto the public Internet. If the
addresses someone has appropriated do clash with RIR assignments to
another entity, does that entity or the RIR have any grounds to take
legal action against them? If they do, they are de facto asserting a
property right in the addresses; if they don't, their actions are
consistent with the notion that addresses are unowned. 

The legal definition is more nuanced and varies from country to country;
the property rights that one has in domain names differ in many ways
from the property rights one gets in real estate or an automobile
because domains are an outcome of a service contract and not a physical
entity. However, you can obviously buy, sell, or lease domains and
addresses and most economists would have no trouble viewing this as a
kind of property right, although (like all property rights) it is highly
conditioned by policies and regulations.  

Here's my bottom line: the debate over whether names and numbers are
property rights or part of a "public trust" is essentially ideological
and doesn't get us too far. It would be far better to view names and
numbers as resources that have to be managed efficiently and equitably,
and to talk about the specific policies and practices instituted to do
so. Private trading or transfers of property rights can serve an
important allocation and efficiency functions, which is why the RIRs
have just started to propose plans to allow address transfers. Policies
to encourage shared, nonexclusive use can also play an important and
creative role. So let's debate the merits and demerits of specific
policies and not start foaming at the mouth at the mention of words like
"property" or "public trust." 

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr  7 12:14:30 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:14:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr>
	 <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com>
	 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net>
	 <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com>
	 <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804070914i5238bab6t45ee04f8902c7632@mail.gmail.com>

<haiku brewing>


Oh Milton, how right
and wrong you are, at same time!
please see text below

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net]
>
> > The fundamental issue is one of ownership and I would say
>  > that Internet names and numbers do not have ownership but are
>  > in the public trust.
>

<snip>

>  creative role. So let's debate the merits and demerits of specific
>  policies and not start foaming at the mouth at the mention of words like
>  "property" or "public trust."

debate them "we" must
but not here; to Denver <http://winmedia.internet2.edu/arin> you
go, virtually!


</haiku brew>

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/3db9c57e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  7 13:55:12 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:55:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Speaking of property rights...
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


...some on this list may be interested in a piece I just published in
First Monday, the online journal. 

It's called, "Info-communism? Ownership and freedom in the digital
economy"
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2058/
1956

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From lists at privaterra.info  Mon Apr  7 21:39:55 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:39:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Internet Governance
 Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
Message-ID: <C803B865-F699-4F10-AE11-327F8A2A17B6@privaterra.info>

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2008 Nominating Committee is issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).

-----
DEADLINE for submissions is:  April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time
Where to send nominations - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org
------

Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).

The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the caucus at different times.

   1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for her candidature.

   2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena.

   3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the MAG.

   4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC’s positions. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned.

Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.

Anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. Self nominations are invited

At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of the following:

1. Name
2. Name of nominator (or self)
3. Nationality
4. Country of Residence
5. Gender
6. Short Bio relevant to IG
7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a good candidate for the MAG


Send nominations to the following email address - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org

IMPORTANT DATES
----------------------------
Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 6th, 2008
Nomination close -  April 13th, 2008
Nomcom confers between 13th and 16th, 2008
Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April 17th, 2008

Please note that DEADLINE for submissions is:  April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080407/de447552/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  8 00:21:49 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:21:49 -0700
Subject: [governance] fighting wars on the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080406064114.4226.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080406064114.4226.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <0FEE78F6-546B-486A-852E-6DFC001AC883@internet.law.pro>

This is worth reading and considering. Given the way the Internet  
works, you could not launch an "attack," of whatever variety you might  
want to use, without traversing the networks and computer systems of  
many nations not at war. Teaser text and link to article below.

-- Bret

--
Military pondering rules for cyber warfare
 From the Associated Press
April 7, 2008

NEW YORK -- U.S. military officials seeking to boost the nation's  
cyber warfare capabilities are looking beyond defending the Internet:  
They are developing ways to launch virtual attacks on enemies.

But first the military will have to figure out the proper boundaries.

"What do we consider to be an act of war in cyberspace?" asked Lt.  
Gen. Robert J. Elder Jr., who heads the Air Force's cyber operations  
command.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cyberwarfare7apr07,1,3021780.story
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  8 02:34:32 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 15:34:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Internet Governance 
In-Reply-To: <C803B865-F699-4F10-AE11-327F8A2A17B6@privaterra.info>
References: <C803B865-F699-4F10-AE11-327F8A2A17B6@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <p06240807c420b1319ec6@[192.168.1.193]>

Robert,

Thanks for this.

Think it's worth mentioning the time commitment 
required and that funding will hopefully be 
available for MAG members from developing 
countries. Text from the report of the last MAG 
meeting:

"There was agreement that active and constructive 
participation of all members was required. 
Members were expected to take part in three 
meetings in Geneva, as well as in the annual IGF 
meeting and participate in online preparatory 
work. Ways of financing attendance of developing 
country members are being explored. All meetings 
also provide tools for remote members' 
participation."

The Geneva consultations typically last 3 days 
and the annual IGF 4 days.  Remote access is 
possible, particularly for the Geneva 
consultations.

Adam



At 9:39 PM -0400 4/7/08, Robert Guerra wrote:
>The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2008 
>Nominating Committee is issuing a call for 
>nominations for choosing Internet Governance 
>Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF 
>Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
>
>
>-----
>
>DEADLINE for submissions is:  April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time
>
>Where to send nominations - 
><mailto:nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org>nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org
>
>------
>
>
>Please submit nominations ­ including 
>self-nominations ­ for choosing Internet 
>Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the 
>IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
>
>
>The recommended persons may or may not be IGC 
>members. However, they should have a civil 
>society identity, and broadly be in alignment 
>with positions given in our charter, and as 
>adopted by the caucus at different times.
>
>
>    1. In nominating someone else please obtain 
>the person¹s consent to be on the MAG if 
>selected, and to seek IGC¹s endorsement for her 
>candidature.
>
>
>    2. Each nomination should come with a brief 
>bio. It should mention with some clarity the 
>activities and/ or positions taken by the person 
>in the IG and information society arena.
>
>
>    3. Please also include a brief write up of 
>why the nominated person will be a good Civil 
>Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the MAG. 
>
>
>    4. Those who are already on the MAG may also 
>briefly mention about how they carried out their 
>responsibilities in the last two terms, in 
>advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, 
>and IGC¹s positions. Their level and manner of 
>engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS 
>constituencies, may also be mentioned.
>
>
>Nominations should also include an assurance 
>that if selected for the MAG one will keep up a 
>strong engagement with CS constituencies, 
>including and especially the IGC. One will both 
>keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed 
>about the MAG proceedings and related matters, 
>as well as present/ push their positions in the 
>MAG.
>
>
>Anyone can nominate, including members of the 
>nomcom. Self nominations are invited
>
>
>At a minimum, all nominations and self 
>nominations should consist of the following:
>
>
>1. Name
>
>2. Name of nominator (or self)
>
>3. Nationality
>
>4. Country of Residence
>
>5. Gender
>
>6. Short Bio relevant to IG
>
>7. What specific skills or experiences do you 
>have that make you a good candidate for the MAG
>
>
>
>Send nominations to the following email address 
>- 
><mailto:nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org>nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org
>
>
>IMPORTANT DATES
>
>----------------------------
>
>Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 6th, 2008
>
>Nomination close -  April 13th, 2008
>
>Nomcom confers between 13th and 16th, 2008
>
>Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April 17th, 2008
>
>
>Please note that DEADLINE for submissions is:  April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time
>
>
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Apr  8 04:14:38 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 10:14:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr> <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6A8@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080408081438.GA13289@nic.fr>

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:23:36AM -0400,
 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote 
 a message of 104 lines which said:

> To say that "IANA is a group of functions" performed via contract
> between USG and ICANNN is more correct

Small fix: AFAIK, not all IANA functions depend on the infamous DoC
contract. The management of the DNS root zone is certainly included
but what about the protocol registries
<http://www.iana.org/protocols/>?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr  8 10:55:48 2008
From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (Carlton Samuels)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:55:48 -0500
Subject: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)
In-Reply-To: <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>
References: <20080407090924.GB30235@nic.fr> <F465A4DD-C942-46F7-9DF8-03101B695A0C@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CBF@EDAMAME.arin.net> <654A5923-E9F5-4CED-B2E2-A1A933897F1F@psg.com> <FEA070315E40A3489D38398C35FE7BB202D1AD6CC6@EDAMAME.arin.net>
Message-ID: <052501c89988$a158c310$e40a4930$@samuels@uwimona.edu.jm>

Well said, Ray!

Carlton

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Plzak [mailto:plzak at arin.net] 
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 07:35 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: RE: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do :-)

ICANN has created a staff organization to perform the function that has the
same name, but enough splitting hairs. The fundamental issue is one of
ownership and I would say that Internet names and numbers do not have
ownership but are in the public trust. Certainly there are intellectual
property rights associated with the recognized holder of a name and there
are rights to the benefits of the services associated with the recognized
holder of a number. The value of both is inherent in these rights.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:22 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Capacity building: there is still work to do
> :-)
>
> well, they don't exist in the same way that the IETF doesn't exist.
> so in virtuality, they do seem to exist.
>
> and while only a function it has real people, is the subject of
> contracts, has expenses and ...
>
> and would not IANA 'exist'  even if ICANN blinked out of existence?
>
> but we need to be careful otherwise i will get into a patter about
> what it means to 'exist' in the virtual age?
>
> and  on the topic of our list, what does it mean to govern something
> that may exist only as a function?
>
> a.
>
> On 7 Apr 2008, at 13:29, Ray Plzak wrote:
> > In reality, IANA does not exist. It is a group of functions that is
> > the subject of a contract between the USG and ICANN. So that portion
> > of the question is moot.
> >
> > 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

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

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


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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Apr  8 11:13:42 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:13:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820695@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C4215846.10BF8%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Milton,

I fear no such forces, just think they're there and that under the
circumstances, hard power can only be offset by soft power.  It's not
obvious that those opposed to the status quo have mustered the latter, e.g.
by making a clear and operationally well defined case for an alternative,
and by aggressively and strategically promoting it.  Given that it's been
difficult to really launch a conversation about what such a case might
entail, here much less than with other stakeholders, it's hard to see how
this changes in a year.  So sure, I'll be happy to take your 50 bucks, which
by then should be worth about 20 francs, enough here for a pizza with no
toppings.

Cheers,

Bill


On 4/4/08 10:50 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I am getting a little concerned about this apparent intimidation and
> fear of the nationalist forces in the US when it comes to Internet
> governance. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> So I take your bet: 50 bucks the next administration, if it is an Obama
> Presidency, will change something related to the JPA in September 2009.
> 
> That means I will have to buy you a pizza and a beer in Geneva, if my
> grasp of cost of living and currency exchange rates is accurate.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 2:55 AM
>> To: Governance Caucus
>> Subject: Re: [governance] NTIA announcement on JPA
>> 
>> 
>> On 3 Apr 2008, at 08:02, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>> In the long run we're all dead,
>> 
>> that is the most optimistic thing i have heard in a while.
>> 
>>> so that's not much comfort.  Prior to that,
>>> I've got fifty bucks that says the next administration won't change
>>> anything, at least not in its first term.  Who'd want to throw read
>>> meat to
>>> right wing blogosphere etc before the 2012 election?
>> 
>> so, do you think that ICANN can survive the international pressures
>> that long?
>> 
>> 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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Wed Apr  9 03:42:20 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 9 Apr 2008 07:42:20 -0000
Subject: [governance] Re: Capacity building: there is still work to do
 : -)
In-Reply-To: <20080408081438.GA13289@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <20080409074220.18193.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>Small fix: AFAIK, not all IANA functions depend on the infamous DoC
>contract. The management of the DNS root zone is certainly included
>but what about the protocol registries
><http://www.iana.org/protocols/>?

It's still all the same contract.  It's on the ICANN web site
somewhere.

There's been some talk in the IETF of splitting off the geeky stuff
that's not IP allocation and root zone management and handling it
closer to the IETF.

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr  9 08:44:41 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:44:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Draft report on IGC Rio workshop on Fulfilling the
 Mandate of the IGF
Message-ID: <C42286D9.10C37%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

Adam mentioned a few weeks ago that the MAG wants all the Rio workshop
organizers that didn’t submit reports on their events to do so.  Having
moderated and been involved in framing and organizing the IGC’s workshop, I
said I’d draft a report.  Parminder then suggested I post it to the list
before sending it to the secretariat, so voila, here’s a draft.  Almost
everyone involved as a co-sponsor or speaker is here, so if my
contemporaneous notes were inaccurate in some way that matters and should be
corrected, please be in touch.  Of course, if someone else has
comments/suggestions feel free to share, bearing in mind this is just a
brief workshop report and not a negotiated position statement meriting
extended debate.  While I vaguely recall a mention of there being a template
for these things I couldn’t find it, so I followed a format used in several
of the workshop reports already posted at
http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html, presumably those
are conforming to something.

Best,

Bill



Internet Governance Forum 2007
Workshop Report
(draft version 09.04.08)

Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF

Organizers 

＊    The Internet Governance Caucus
＊    The Government of Jamaica
＊    The Global Telecentre Alliance

Panelists

William J. Drake (moderator)
Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance
Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva

Karen Banks
Network Development Manager for the Association for Progressive
Communications

Ayesha Hassan
Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and Telecoms and Executive in charge
of ICT policy, the International Chamber of Commerce

Everton Frask Lucero
Head of the Science and Technology Division of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Government of Brazil

Matthew Shears 
Director of Public Policy, the Internet Society

Parminder Jeet Singh
Executive Director, IT for Change

Nicholas Thorne 
United Kingdom’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN and other
International Organisations, Geneva


Summary of the Discussion

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society gave the IGF a mandate to
perform twelve important functions.  While the IGF has succeeded in
performing some of these, others have proven to be more difficult to carry
out within the confines of annual meetings.  Accordingly, the civil society
Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) organized this workshop to foster
multistakeholder dialogue on ways to fulfill the mandate in light of two
years of experience.  Its objectives were to review the thinking behind the
mandate’s formulation; identify any mandated functions that would be
particularly value-adding but are not being performed sufficiently in the
IGF or elsewhere; suggest operationally practical steps that the IGF
community could pursue in order to facilitate their performance; and assess
related trends and challenges in the IGF.

The workshop began with some discussion of the need for transparent and
inclusive debate on the mandate, especially given the stakeholder
expectations that had been raised by the Tunis Agenda and the WSIS
preparatory process.  It was suggested that because some of the specific
functions agreed to in Tunis cannot easily be performed solely by annual
main sessions, it could make sense to decentralize the effort and pursue
them in thematic workshops, dynamic coalitions, and perhaps even working
groups.  Were this approach to be followed, there would be a need for a
transmission path through which ideas and information could percolate from
the bottom up and be considered by the broader IGF community, e.g. allowing
rapporteurs from these collaborations to participate in main session panels
in order to present their key findings and outcomes.

In broad terms, one set of panelists expressed satisfaction with what has
been achieved to date but wanted the IGF to expand and deepen its work on
the mandated functions, while another set of panelists expressed caution
about adopting overly constraining interpretations of the mandate and overly
ambitious objectives for its implementation.  For example, one panelist
stressed that the Tunis Agenda mandate means what it says and embodies a
negotiated consensus that cannot be set aside.  Nevertheless, he argued, at
least six of the mandated functions---such as promoting the WSIS principles
and making non-binding recommendations---are not being performed, and there
are issues with the preparatory process for meetings that affect the IGF’s
ability to redress this situation.  Two other panelists expressed related
views, averring that the IGF needs the institutional mechanisms and
resources to perform the functions and help build consensus on key
developmental objectives like promoting access and the Internet’s public
goods character.  In contrast, another panelist cautioned against a
formulaic “check the box” evaluation of the IGF’s performance, particularly
absent any clear criteria for what constitutes success in this setting.
Insofar as some stakeholders are already tackling the issues, it would be
better to enhance their ability to share information on their efforts than
to expect the IGF per se to take on demanding responsibilities.  In a
similar vein, another panelist maintained that it was too early to judge the
IGF according to a checklist of functions because participants are still
feeling their way with the multistakeholder process, learning to accept
different perspectives, and building trust.  A final panelist concurred,
citing Rio’s nonconfrontational main session on critical Internet resources
as evidence of the progress toward mutual understanding that can be achieved
with patience and multistakeholder dialogue.  Nurturing and building upon
that progress will require avoiding intergovernmental-style negotiations of
recommendations or other outcome texts.

The subsequent discussion with the large audience in attendance was robust
and interactive. Audience members made a variety of interventions on such
points as: the adequacy, or inadequacy, of current IGF efforts to implement
the mandate; the need to view the mandate’s functions in relation to each
IGF activity, rather than as segmented streams of new activity, and to
establish working methods on this basis; governmental participants’ desire
for recommendations or other conference conclusions that they can take back
to their national capitals and use in making the case for continuing
participation; the apparent lack of consensus on the mandate’s vision within
the current MAG; the importance of engaging a broader range of stakeholders
and organizations in the IGF; the insufficiency of uncoordinated stakeholder
initiatives as an alternative to concerted mandate implementation within the
IGF; and the needs to replace the MAG with a tripartite bureau structure,
adopt nonbinding recommendations, set new substantive foci for the main
sessions, and establish working groups with competence for specific and
pressing issues that cannot be tackled effectively by panel discussions of
whatever kind.  Despite the diversity of opinions expressed on these and
related matters, one point did appear to garner rough consensus and was
subsequently reported to the main session on Taking Stock and the Way
Forward.  This was the abovementioned notion that designated rapporteurs for
workshops and coalitions on thematic issues should be included in
appropriate main session panels in order to report on their activities.


Relevant Organizations and ways of communicating with them

The workshop was relevant to all the intergovernmental, private sector, and
multistakeholder bodies participating in the IGF.  Communication with them
in the context of the IGF is the best option.

Possible follow-up

Most participants expressed interest in further multistakeholder discussions
about how the IGF can best fulfill its mandate.  Accordingly, the IGC will
propose to organize a follow-up workshop in Hyderabad that will delve more
deeply into selected aspects of this topic. In addition, per the above, it
would be useful if a workshop rapporteur were allowed to participate in the
main session on Taking Stock and the Way Forward in order to bring to the
wider IGF community the main points arising in the workshop.


***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080409/a4c51b45/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr  9 12:38:13 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:38:13 +0900
Subject: [governance] Draft report on IGC Rio workshop on Fulfilling
In-Reply-To: <C42286D9.10C37%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C42286D9.10C37%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p06240819c4226d847c19@[192.168.1.193]>

Bill, thanks.

How about adding a link to the transcript of the 
taking stock session noting the workshop 
organizers were invited to summarize their 
discussion 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-TakingStock-15NOV07.txt>

Adam



>Hi,
>
>Adam mentioned a few weeks ago that the MAG 
>wants all the Rio workshop organizers that 
>didn¹t submit reports on their events to do so. 
> Having moderated and been involved in framing 
>and organizing the IGC¹s workshop, I said I¹d 
>draft a report.  Parminder then suggested I post 
>it to the list before sending it to the 
>secretariat, so voila, here¹s a draft.  Almost 
>everyone involved as a co-sponsor or speaker is 
>here, so if my contemporaneous notes were 
>inaccurate in some way that matters and should 
>be corrected, please be in touch.  Of course, if 
>someone else has comments/suggestions feel free 
>to share, bearing in mind this is just a brief 
>workshop report and not a negotiated position 
>statement meriting extended debate.  While I 
>vaguely recall a mention of there being a 
>template for these things I couldn¹t find it, so 
>I followed a format used in several of the 
>workshop reports already posted at 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,>http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html, 
>presumably those are conforming to something.
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>Internet Governance Forum 2007
>Workshop Report
>(draft version 09.04.08)
>
>Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
>
>Organizers
>
>Åñ    The Internet Governance Caucus
>Åñ    The Government of Jamaica
>Åñ    The Global Telecentre Alliance
>
>Panelists
>
>William J. Drake (moderator)  
>Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance
>Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva
>
>Karen Banks
>Network Development Manager for the Association for Progressive Communications
>
>Ayesha Hassan
>Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and 
>Telecoms and Executive in charge of ICT policy, 
>the International Chamber of Commerce
>
>Everton Frask Lucero
>Head of the Science and Technology Division of 
>the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of 
>Brazil
>
>Matthew Shears
>Director of Public Policy, the Internet Society
>
>Parminder Jeet Singh
>Executive Director, IT for Change
>
>Nicholas Thorne
>United Kingdom¹s Ambassador and Permanent 
>Representative to the UN and other International 
>Organisations, Geneva
>
>
>Summary of the Discussion
>
>The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society 
>gave the IGF a mandate to perform twelve 
>important functions.  While the IGF has 
>succeeded in performing some of these, others 
>have proven to be more difficult to carry out 
>within the confines of annual meetings. 
> Accordingly, the civil society Internet 
>Governance Caucus (IGC) organized this workshop 
>to foster multistakeholder dialogue on ways to 
>fulfill the mandate in light of two years of 
>experience.  Its objectives were to review the 
>thinking behind the mandate¹s formulation; 
>identify any mandated functions that would be 
>particularly value-adding but are not being 
>performed sufficiently in the IGF or elsewhere; 
>suggest operationally practical steps that the 
>IGF community could pursue in order to 
>facilitate their performance; and assess related 
>trends and challenges in the IGF.
>
>The workshop began with some discussion of the 
>need for transparent and inclusive debate on the 
>mandate, especially given the stakeholder 
>expectations that had been raised by the Tunis 
>Agenda and the WSIS preparatory process.  It was 
>suggested that because some of the specific 
>functions agreed to in Tunis cannot easily be 
>performed solely by annual main sessions, it 
>could make sense to decentralize the effort and 
>pursue them in thematic workshops, dynamic 
>coalitions, and perhaps even working groups. 
> Were this approach to be followed, there would 
>be a need for a transmission path through which 
>ideas and information could percolate from the 
>bottom up and be considered by the broader IGF 
>community, e.g. allowing rapporteurs from these 
>collaborations to participate in main session 
>panels in order to present their key findings 
>and outcomes.
>
>In broad terms, one set of panelists expressed 
>satisfaction with what has been achieved to date 
>but wanted the IGF to expand and deepen its work 
>on the mandated functions, while another set of 
>panelists expressed caution about adopting 
>overly constraining interpretations of the 
>mandate and overly ambitious objectives for its 
>implementation.  For example, one panelist 
>stressed that the Tunis Agenda mandate means 
>what it says and embodies a negotiated consensus 
>that cannot be set aside.  Nevertheless, he 
>argued, at least six of the mandated 
>functions---such as promoting the WSIS 
>principles and making non-binding 
>recommendations---are not being performed, and 
>there are issues with the preparatory process 
>for meetings that affect the IGF¹s ability to 
>redress this situation.  Two other panelists 
>expressed related views, averring that the IGF 
>needs the institutional mechanisms and resources 
>to perform the functions and help build 
>consensus on key developmental objectives like 
>promoting access and the Internet¹s public goods 
>character.  In contrast, another panelist 
>cautioned against a formulaic ³check the box² 
>evaluation of the IGF¹s performance, 
>particularly absent any clear criteria for what 
>constitutes success in this setting.  Insofar as 
>some stakeholders are already tackling the 
>issues, it would be better to enhance their 
>ability to share information on their efforts 
>than to expect the IGF per se to take on 
>demanding responsibilities.  In a similar vein, 
>another panelist maintained that it was too 
>early to judge the IGF according to a checklist 
>of functions because participants are still 
>feeling their way with the multistakeholder 
>process, learning to accept different 
>perspectives, and building trust.  A final 
>panelist concurred, citing Rio¹s 
>nonconfrontational main session on critical 
>Internet resources as evidence of the progress 
>toward mutual understanding that can be achieved 
>with patience and multistakeholder dialogue. 
> Nurturing and building upon that progress will 
>require avoiding intergovernmental-style 
>negotiations of recommendations or other outcome 
>texts.
>
>The subsequent discussion with the large 
>audience in attendance was robust and 
>interactive. Audience members made a variety of 
>interventions on such points as: the adequacy, 
>or inadequacy, of current IGF efforts to 
>implement the mandate; the need to view the 
>mandate¹s functions in relation to each IGF 
>activity, rather than as segmented streams of 
>new activity, and to establish working methods 
>on this basis; governmental participants¹ desire 
>for recommendations or other conference 
>conclusions that they can take back to their 
>national capitals and use in making the case for 
>continuing participation; the apparent lack of 
>consensus on the mandate¹s vision within the 
>current MAG; the importance of engaging a 
>broader range of stakeholders and organizations 
>in the IGF; the insufficiency of uncoordinated 
>stakeholder initiatives as an alternative to 
>concerted mandate implementation within the IGF; 
>and the needs to replace the MAG with a 
>tripartite bureau structure, adopt nonbinding 
>recommendations, set new substantive foci for 
>the main sessions, and establish working groups 
>with competence for specific and pressing issues 
>that cannot be tackled effectively by panel 
>discussions of whatever kind.  Despite the 
>diversity of opinions expressed on these and 
>related matters, one point did appear to garner 
>rough consensus and was subsequently reported to 
>the main session on Taking Stock and the Way 
>Forward.  This was the abovementioned notion 
>that designated rapporteurs for workshops and 
>coalitions on thematic issues should be included 
>in appropriate main session panels in order to 
>report on their activities.
>
>
>Relevant Organizations and ways of communicating with them
>
>The workshop was relevant to all the 
>intergovernmental, private sector, and 
>multistakeholder bodies participating in the 
>IGF.  Communication with them in the context of 
>the IGF is the best option.
>
>Possible follow-up
>
>Most participants expressed interest in further 
>multistakeholder discussions about how the IGF 
>can best fulfill its mandate.  Accordingly, the 
>IGC will propose to organize a follow-up 
>workshop in Hyderabad that will delve more 
>deeply into selected aspects of this topic. In 
>addition, per the above, it would be useful if a 
>workshop rapporteur were allowed to participate 
>in the main session on Taking Stock and the Way 
>Forward in order to bring to the wider IGF 
>community the main points arising in the 
>workshop.   
>
>
>***********************************************************
>William J. Drake  
>Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
>Geneva, Switzerland
>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>***********************************************************
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From wcurrie at apc.org  Wed Apr  9 19:32:57 2008
From: wcurrie at apc.org (Willie Currie)
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:32:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Speaking of property rights...
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <47FD5229.4060202@apc.org>

Hi Milton

This is a v insightful paper and raises important points about 
informational property rights.

I think that the notion of info-communism is a red herring, (excuse the 
pun) and can't be taken seriously - there is a some kind of radical chic 
at play there in the iconography - Che Guevara has become a mainstream 
icon used ironically by all comers, including business advertisers for 
their own purposes.

While the claims of freedom, the individual and constitutionality are v 
important, they do need to be balanced with the claims of the social. 
This is a key faultline in contemporary gloabl politics that is at play 
in all sectors of society and the economy at present - particularly in 
the crisis around global financial markets. Freedom, individual property 
rights and extreme deregulation led to the crisis in which the whole 
system of global finances was threatening to become severely unhinged, 
leading the state representing the social interest in a stable financial 
market to intervene. In the space of intellectual property rights there 
is a similar extremism at play in the maximalist regime for IPRs that 
was, until challenged by social forces, willing to let masses of people 
in developing countries die of HIV/AIDS, aided and abetted by 
neo-conservatives like Thabo Mbeki in South Africa (to our shame). 
Microsoft is obviously an egregrious example  in the world of software 
that could not be effectively restrained by social forces in the US, the 
centre of (extreme, suicidal) liberalism in the world. It is little 
wonder that the FOSS movement has taken up the issue aggressively, nor 
coincidental that it should be Gates who cast the first stone of 
info-communism around.

In the sphere of access to infrastructure, there has been ten-fifteen 
years of market liberalism at play which has had some successes but is 
not able to address the social needs of  people who have little income, 
the bottom of the pyramid arguments notwithstanding. Here is a space for 
a commons to be created that can co-exist with a competitive market in 
access where citizens can pay for services. But the dice are loaded 
against such solutions - wireless municipal broadband whatever its 
problems is under severe threat in the US, for ecxample. So I think 
there needs to be a paradigm shift in which claims of the individual to 
property rights and social claims for a commons can be balanced 
coherently. The fall out from the financial crisis is likely to 
facilitate this rebalancing process and it has nothing to do with the 
dead 20th century ideology of communism. but rather with issues of 
justice, equality and the assertion of the social.

willie


 Milton L Mueller wrote:
> ...some on this list may be interested in a piece I just published in
> First Monday, the online journal. 
>
> It's called, "Info-communism? Ownership and freedom in the digital
> economy"
> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2058/
> 1956
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>   

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 10 14:14:16 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:14:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Speaking of property rights...
In-Reply-To: <47FD5229.4060202@apc.org>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC6B5@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <47FD5229.4060202@apc.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9018209F4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Willie Currie [mailto:wcurrie at apc.org]
> 
> This is a v insightful paper and raises important points about
> informational property rights.

Thanks, Willie

> I think that the notion of info-communism is a red herring, (excuse
the
> pun) and can't be taken seriously - there is a some kind of radical
chic
> at play there in the iconography - Che Guevara has become a mainstream

Let's say "communalism" rather than communism; if so, no it is not a red
herring, there is still a lot of confusion around that issue as I hoped
I documented well in the article.

> While the claims of freedom, the individual and constitutionality are
v
> important, they do need to be balanced with the claims of the social.

Sure. But the dialogue was in the context of the debate over "free"
software and how freedom related to property rights. You are raising
larger issues that I didn't address. 

> This is a key faultline in contemporary gloabl politics that is at
play
> in all sectors of society and the economy at present - particularly in
> the crisis around global financial markets. Freedom, individual
property
> rights and extreme deregulation led to the crisis in which the whole
> system of global finances was threatening to become severely unhinged,

Well, off topic really for me, but your diagnosis may lack something.
E.g., the financial crisis here has as much to do with government
policies lowering interest rates too far and too long, and with moral
hazards created by state bailouts, as it does with "freedom" and
"deregulation." 

> market to intervene. In the space of intellectual property rights
there
> is a similar extremism at play in the maximalist regime for IPRs that
> was, until challenged by social forces, willing to let masses of
people
> in developing countries die of HIV/AIDS, aided and abetted by
> neo-conservatives like Thabo Mbeki in South Africa (to our shame).

But my point about IPR is that it often requires an extreme
pro-regulatory stance. It is, e.g., the trademark and copyright lawyers
who want to concentrate power in ICANN, or to hardwire protection
standards into equipment, or even to ban equipment altogether. 

So do not saddle us advocates of freedom with that side of the political
equation.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 11 01:43:17 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:43:17 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] INTERESTING VIDEO - THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
Message-ID: <919898.13099.qm@web25507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080411/f3d65b3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Fri Apr 11 05:51:59 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:51:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <20080330093838.705C9E04CB@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080330093838.705C9E04CB@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <9534A4C1-F6E1-46BA-B82C-2BA947C1800B@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

Where are we with IGC workshop proposals, since deadline is April 30?
 From previous messages, the following ideas emerged:

1- "Role and Mandate of IGF" (follow-up of last year workshop. I  
would rephrase title as: "Role, Structure and Mandate of the IGF")
2- "Critical Internet Resources" (title to be reworked)
3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,  
technical and private means/instruments" (what does "private" refer  
to here? Isn't this covered by "contractual"?)
4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -  
implications for IG" (I would rephrase as: "Commons, public service  
and commercial values: IG issues for their pacific coexistence")

Let aside the question of co-sponsorship by other stakeholders, that  
we could explore later in the process:
- workshop #1 should be the main IGC workshop
- workshops 2, 3 and 4 could be co-organized/merged with similar  
proposals from other CS consituencies, provided they agree, of course  
(e.g. IGP mentioned its plans to organize a workshop on issue #3,  
ITfC have plans on issue #4 if I well remember, etc.).
- I'm wondering whether workshop #2 issues couldn't be dealt with in  
workshop #4, thus restricting our plans to 3 workshops?

Besides this, the IGC obviously may decide to co-sponsor other  
workshops, once they are defined and submitted to its members for co- 
sponsorship.

I would then suggest at this step that we collectively (and quickly)  
work in priority on proposals for workshops #1, #3 and #4.

Best,
Meryem

Le 30 mars 08 à 11:36, Parminder a écrit :

> My suggestions...
>
>> 2- "Critical Internet resources"
>> or whatever this may me called. Adam's proposing "Arrangements for
>> Internet governance", but I'm afraid this title may be misleading. I
>> think the idea is the same, however)
>
> Istn this too generic as stated here. I could not understand what  
> would
> 'arrangements for IG' stand for.
>
> On the other hand, Meryem, in this list of 3 you did not include the
> proposal for a workshop on nonprofit/ public/ welfare aspect of the  
> Internet
> and its implications for IG. Some support for this workshop has been
> expressed, and some discussion taken place. The last was about  
> naming it
> something like
>
> "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet
> -- implications for IG"
>
> But I think it will need some more work... Meanwhile it is  
> interesting to
> note that Council or Europe in its recent resolution (at
> https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Rec(2008)6 ) further expound  
> the
> 'public value' aspect of the Internet that it has been speaking  
> about for
> some time now.
>
> To quote
>
> " Aware of the public service value of the Internet, understood as  
> people’s
> significant reliance on the Internet as an essential tool for their  
> everyday
> activities (communication, information, knowledge, commercial  
> transactions,
> entertainment) and the resulting legitimate expectation that Internet
> services be accessible, affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing and
> recalling in this regard Recommendation Rec(2007)16 of the  
> Committee of
> Ministers on measures to promote the public service value of the  
> Internet."
>
> I think this is an important 'higher level' issue for IG that CS  
> must push.
> And therefore a workshop on this issue of public value or  
> publicness of the
> Internet will be useful.
>
>> 3- "Technical and contractual means of law enforcement and control:
>> revising the competence of jurisdictions?"
>> This may be rewritten, but I hope you get the idea.
>
> There is good agreement on a workshop roughly around this topic,  
> but again
> this needs more work. I suggest something like - "IG and global  
> jurisdiction
> - political, legal, contractual, technical and private means/ 
> instruments'. I
> know this is spectacularly inelegant, but just contributing this as a
> general idea of what its content can be.
>
> And we may do a place-holder for present - with something shorter and
> crisper - and expound the idea further as we prepare the final  
> format and
> title for the workshop.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 9:12 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30
>>
>> Hi Parminder and all,
>>
>> Le 25 mars 08 à 13:50, Parminder a écrit :
>>>
>>> As proposed earlier I do think we should submit a few strong
>>> proposals...
>>>
>>> I had given a call for IGC sponsored workshop proposals on 12th
>>> March. We
>>> have little time left to the 30th, so lets get on with it.
>>
>> Note it's April 30, not March 30. But still, not that much time to
>> achieve this:)
>>
>>> We saw discussions on two possible topics, in the last few weeks
>>> (pl point
>>> out if any other has figured, and I haven't mentioned it here)
>>
>> I share Bill's and your suggestion to concentrate on 2-3 well defined
>> IGC workshops, with co-sponsorship possibilities for other workshops.
>>
>> I support these three themes, for IGC workshops:
>>
>> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF" (follow-up of last year workshop)
>>
>> 2- "Critical Internet resources"
>> or whatever this may me called. Adam's proposing "Arrangements for
>> Internet governance", but I'm afraid this title may be misleading. I
>> think the idea is the same, however)
>>
>> 3- "Technical and contractual means of law enforcement and control:
>> revising the competence of jurisdictions?"
>> This may be rewritten, but I hope you get the idea. The point is that
>> if we organize a workshop on "cross-country jurisdiction issues", I'm
>> afraid we'll fall into years-old very specific and technical legal
>> debates, while not addressing the main point w.r.t. Internet
>> governance, which is how technical and contractual means are used to
>> circumvent national laws (sovereignty issue but also breaches of the
>> rule of law), to circumvent or overcome the competence of
>> jurisdiction issue, as well as to insidiously establish non legal
>> standards. Thus, it's a wider topic.
>> Re: technical means, we touch on the issue of IPR as well as on
>> content regulation through filtering
>> Re: contractual means, we can deal with notice and take down
>> procedures, etc. (most recent example of such case: Network Solutions
>> - as host provider, not as registrar - suspending the
>> fitnathemovie.com website, see: http://newsroom.networksolutions.com/
>> 2008/network-solutions-statement-on-fitnathemoviecom/)
>> It seems to me that this would allow, more generally, to discuss all
>> the issues synthetized in Willie's message (http://lists.cpsr.org/
>> lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00147.html).
>>
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>>>
>>> Roughly put they are
>>>
>>> - cross-country jurisdiction issues in IG
>>>
>>> - Commercial or welfare-based nature of the Internet -
>>> Implications for IG
>>>
>>> And we do certainly want to make our last year's workshop on  
>>> 'role and
>>> mandate of the IGF' into an annual affair.
>>>
>>> And as Adam suggests, the issues we proposed in Feb for main themes
>>> can be
>>> rehashed as IGC sponsored workshops. These are
>>>
>>> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
>>> What Is
>>> the Status of It
>>>
>>> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
>>> Internet
>>>
>>> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>>>
>>> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>>>
>>> (detailed text as per caucus's consensus statement to Feb
>>> consultations is
>>> given below)
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
>>> What Is
>>> the Status of It
>>>
>>> Tunis Agenda speaks of the need for 'enhanced cooperation' for  
>>> global
>>> Internet policy making. There are different views about what
>>> exactly is
>>> meant by this term, and what processes will/ can constitute  
>>> 'enhanced
>>> cooperation'. IGF is the right forum to deliberate on the meaning  
>>> and
>>> possibilities of this term, through wide participation of all
>>> stakeholders
>>> in the multi-stakeholder spirit of the WSIS.  It is quite possible
>>> that such
>>> an open discussion pushes the process of 'enhanced cooperation'
>>> forward,
>>> which at present seems to be caught in a kind of a limbo, or at
>>> least some
>>> degree of confusion.
>>>
>>> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
>>> Internet
>>>
>>> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle
>>> for the
>>> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as
>>> Internet becomes
>>> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and
>>> social
>>> activities. These challenges are most manifest in the physical
>>> layer, but
>>> also increasingly in the content and application layers. This
>>> session will
>>> examine the implication of this principle, and its possible
>>> evolutionary
>>> interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>>>
>>> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for
>>> the IGF.
>>> Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens
>>> and Rio
>>> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted
>>> significant,
>>> focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance
>>> mechanisms and
>>> development.  However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil
>>> society
>>> actors in collaboration with the Swiss Office of Communications and
>>> other
>>> partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development
>>> Agenda for
>>> Internet Governance."  The workshop considered the options for
>>> establishing
>>> a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream
>>> development considerations into Internet governance decision making
>>> processes.
>>>
>>> Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further
>>> work on the
>>> topic being pursued in the IGF.  Hence, we believe the Development
>>> Agenda
>>> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that
>>> this
>>> would be of keen interest to a great many participants there.  We  
>>> also
>>> support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a
>>> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations
>>> to the
>>> IGF on a development agenda.
>>>
>>> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>>>
>>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes  
>>> "should be
>>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full  
>>> involvement of
>>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>>> organizations." Governments invoked these principles throughout the
>>> WSIS
>>> process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF to, "promote and
>>> assess,
>>> on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet
>>> Governance processes."  Nevertheless, the IGF has not held any
>>> follow-up
>>> discussion on how to pursue this key element of its mandate.  The
>>> Internet
>>> Governance Caucus has consistently advocated programmatic activity
>>> in this
>>> arena, and hence welcomes the Swiss government's statement that
>>> implementation of the WSIS principles should be added as a cross-
>>> cutting
>>> issue at the core of all IGF discussions.  To help kick-start that
>>> cross-cutting consideration, we propose that a main session in
>>> Hyderabad
>>> concentrate on two WSIS principles of general applicability for  
>>> which
>>> progress in implementation can be most readily
>>> assessed: transparency, and inclusive participation.  The session
>>> could
>>> consider patterns of practice across Internet governance
>>> mechanisms, and
>>> identify generalizable lessons concerning good or best practices.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:37 PM
>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> Subject: [governance] workshop deadline: April 30
>>>>
>>>> Deadline for the submission of proposals for workshops, best  
>>>> practice
>>>> forums and open forums is 30 April 2008. Not many weeks away.  
>>>> Details
>>>> in the MAG meeting report
>>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.
>>>> 28.02.2008.v2.pdf>
>>>> and most of the relevant information copied below.
>>>>
>>>> Issues the caucus recommended in contributions for the last
>>>> consultation have not all be included. It would not hurt to quickly
>>>> re-submit those comments (amended to take account of the MAG's
>>>> report).
>>>>
>>>> Again, if you organized a workshop in Rio and have not yet  
>>>> submitted
>>>> a report, please do so. (about 80 events in Rio and
>>>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html> not many
>>>> have submitted a report, which if anyone really cares about the IGF
>>>> producing outcomes, is a bit silly.)
>>>>
>>>> Adam
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Draft Programme Outline
>>>>
>>>> General programming principles:
>>>> * Two days with general themes and main sessions focused on  
>>>> specific
>>>> issues and not general overviews.
>>>> * Some workshops could be held on themes defined by the MAG (main
>>>> workshops), but organized by others who respond to a call for
>>>> proposals.
>>>> * Main workshops, which are linked to the main sessions and  
>>>> workshops
>>>> on the four Athens themes, are not to be held in parallel to main
>>>> sessions.
>>>> * Other workshops may be held in parallel to the main sessions,
>>>> depending on the quantity and quality of the proposals.
>>>> * All organizers of events (workshops, best practices etc) will be
>>>> asked to commit themselves to submit a report on their event.
>>>> Non-submission of a report will disqualify the organizer for the
>>>> following year.
>>>> * Preference will be given in 2008 to those who did submit a report
>>>> for 2007. (Submission of reports is still possible and encouraged.)
>>>> * No official meetings starting after 1800 hours.
>>>> * No official meetings during the lunch-break between 1300-1400
>>>> hours.
>>>> * Further efforts will be made to enable remote participation
>>>> * Efforts will be made to publish the proceedings of the meeting  
>>>> also
>>>> in other formats.
>>>>
>>>> 3 December
>>>> Curtain raiser, tutorials, workshops Opening ceremony/Opening  
>>>> session
>>>>
>>>> 4 December
>>>> Theme:
>>>> Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next billion
>>>> (alternate title: Expanding the Internet)
>>>> 1100 - 1300: Low cost sustainable access
>>>> 1400 - 1600: Multilingualization
>>>> 1630 - 1830: Implications for development policy
>>>>
>>>> Host Country Reception
>>>>
>>>> 5 December
>>>> Theme: Managing the Internet (alternate title: Using the Internet)
>>>> 1100 - 1300: Critical Internet resources
>>>> 1400 - 1600: Arrangements for Internet governance
>>>> 1630 - 1830: Global cooperation for Internet security and stability
>>>>
>>>> 6 December
>>>> 0900 - 1100: Taking stock and the way forward
>>>> 1130 - 1300: Debate
>>>> 1400 - 1600: Emerging issues
>>>> 1630 - 1800: Closing Ceremony
>>>>
>>>> Notes from the discussion:
>>>>
>>>> The discussion on the two schedules and on possible topics took on
>>>> the character of a brain storming session that would provide a
>>>> starting point for discussion in the MAG and the wider IGF  
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the points that were brought out include:
>>>> * The planning for 2008 should take into account the Chairman's
>>>> Summary of the Rio meeting and look at the lessons learned and  
>>>> issues
>>>> raised in the previous meetings.
>>>> * Possible focused topics for "Low cost sustainable access" could
>>>> include the role of entrepreneurship in providing low cost
>>>> sustainable access with a special focus on entrepreneurship and
>>>> India's success.
>>>> * The scope of "Managing the Internet" topic could focus on
>>>> international, national or local management of the Internet or the
>>>> relationship among the three levels.
>>>> * Possible focused topics for "Critical Internet resources"  
>>>> include:
>>>> * Enabling growth and innovation
>>>> * Capacity building
>>>> * The role of public private partnership in managing the Internet
>>>> * Transition from IPv4 to IPv6
>>>> * Governance issues in promoting the adoption of IPv6
>>>> * Topics beyond IP addressing
>>>> * Possible Debate topics:
>>>> * IPR and innovation for development
>>>> * Privacy and protection of children
>>>> * Relationship between security and privacy
>>>> * The "Taking Stock and the Way Forward" session could include an
>>>> evaluation of the IGF in regard to its mandate
>>>>
>>>> * Other comments:
>>>> * Freedom of Expression should have a dedicated session, though  
>>>> there
>>>> was a question whether the IGF was the appropriate forum to discuss
>>>> this issue.
>>>> * Should the topic on innovations be discussed under
>>>> * Emerging Issues
>>>> * Universalization of the Internet.
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From michael_leibrandt at web.de  Fri Apr 11 10:58:59 2008
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:58:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
Message-ID: <121078121@web.de>

Hi there,

Reading the proposed ws titles again after sipping some smooth fresh coconut juice at the endless coast of Bahia, I think they sound somewhat too >academic< and - boring. I guess we`re not doing this exercise just for us, but want to attract co-sponsors and participants with different and often limited IG backgrounds. Based on Meryems comment, my suggestions would be as follows: 

1- "Role and Mandate of IGF" 

We`re moving towards the third IGF, so please no more discussions about the present IGF settings and/or TA interpretations. How about >Future Development of the IGF<?

2- "Critical Internet Resources" 

Still the hot issue, including the ugly ec challenge. Don`t share the view of some colleagues that the US elections will bring a quick solution to the internationalization problem, therefore we need to continue that debate. This includes the question if internationalization can be reached directly coming from a one-government setting, or if  there might be the need  for a detour via stronger IGO envolvement (I know, a no-go for some colleagues). Actually, this is also about future coalitions between cs and other relevant players. Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet Governance<?

3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual, 
technical and private means/instruments" 

Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more about >decision making< processes in a wider sense? The main challenge seems to be that we have to combine a global infrastructure with local and regional needs and expectations. How about >Local Users in Global Internet Governance<? This includes, among others, the consumer confronted with foreign custom duties as well as the SME confonted with foreign intellectual property regimes.

4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet - 
implications for IG"

In the Web 2.0 world you can often find both spaces in just one entity. I would use a shortened version of Meryems proposal: >Commons, public service and commercial values<.

Cheers,

Michael

_________________________________________________________________________
In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten! 
Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114

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

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


From tatiw at riseup.net  Fri Apr 11 11:23:24 2008
From: tatiw at riseup.net (tatiw at riseup.net)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <121078121@web.de>
References: <121078121@web.de>
Message-ID: <61944.127.0.0.1.1207927404.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>

longe live the refreshing coconuts of bahia!

they are great suggestions! the only one I would perhaps think feel still
wanting to understand further is the second one cause there are plenty of
critical resources on the net! not only the formal structure but its
architecture, standarts, movements.. and I also hope that we will be
discussing internationalization as our common future on the first instance
of the workshop..

it is my first post hope I am being clear!

xt (from another brazilian coast)




> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>
> Still the hot issue, including the ugly ec challenge. Don`t share the view
> of some colleagues that the US elections will bring a quick solution to
> the internationalization problem, therefore we need to continue that
> debate. This includes the question if internationalization can be reached
> directly coming from a one-government setting, or if  there might be the
> need  for a detour via stronger IGO envolvement (I know, a no-go for some
> colleagues). Actually, this is also about future coalitions between cs and
> other relevant players. Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of
> Internet Governance<?




> Hi there,
>
> Reading the proposed ws titles again after sipping some smooth fresh
> coconut juice at the endless coast of Bahia, I think they sound somewhat
> too >academic< and - boring. I guess we`re not doing this exercise just
> for us, but want to attract co-sponsors and participants with different
> and often limited IG backgrounds. Based on Meryems comment, my suggestions
> would be as follows:
>
> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>
> We`re moving towards the third IGF, so please no more discussions about
> the present IGF settings and/or TA interpretations. How about >Future
> Development of the IGF<?
>
> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>
> Still the hot issue, including the ugly ec challenge. Don`t share the view
> of some colleagues that the US elections will bring a quick solution to
> the internationalization problem, therefore we need to continue that
> debate. This includes the question if internationalization can be reached
> directly coming from a one-government setting, or if  there might be the
> need  for a detour via stronger IGO envolvement (I know, a no-go for some
> colleagues). Actually, this is also about future coalitions between cs and
> other relevant players. Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of
> Internet Governance<?
>
> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> technical and private means/instruments"
>
> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more about
> >decision making< processes in a wider sense? The main challenge seems to
> be that we have to combine a global infrastructure with local and regional
> needs and expectations. How about >Local Users in Global Internet
> Governance<? This includes, among others, the consumer confronted with
> foreign custom duties as well as the SME confonted with foreign
> intellectual property regimes.
>
> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> implications for IG"
>
> In the Web 2.0 world you can often find both spaces in just one entity. I
> would use a shortened version of Meryems proposal: >Commons, public
> service and commercial values<.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> In 5 Schritten zur eigenen Homepage. Jetzt Domain sichern und gestalten!
> Nur 3,99 EUR/Monat! http://www.maildomain.web.de/?mc=021114
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 11 11:26:59 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:26:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <121078121@web.de>
References: <121078121@web.de>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820A7D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> Don`t share the view
> of some colleagues that the US elections will bring a quick solution
to
> the internationalization problem, therefore we need to continue that
> debate. 

Just a correction: no one has suggested that the US elections would
quickly solve the entire internationalization issue, what was suggested
was that the JPA might be concluded at the end of its term in Sept,
2009. 

The JPA, as we all know, is but one part of the 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Fri Apr 11 12:46:45 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:46:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <121078121@web.de>
References: <121078121@web.de>
Message-ID: <C533E8BF-3AE8-4F46-BE16-B96327817315@ras.eu.org>


Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> Hi there,
>
> Reading the proposed ws titles again after sipping some smooth  
> fresh coconut juice at the endless coast of Bahia, I think they  
> sound somewhat too >academic< and - boring.

Academic?? Check twice that you're not drinking a batida de coco  
instead of a coco verde:) Both are good, anyway..

> I guess we`re not doing this exercise just for us, but want to  
> attract co-sponsors and participants with different and often  
> limited IG backgrounds. Based on Meryems comment, my suggestions  
> would be as follows:
>
> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>
> We`re moving towards the third IGF, so please no more discussions  
> about the present IGF settings and/or TA interpretations. How about  
> >Future Development of the IGF<?

Tabula rasa? Hell no! The aim of this (hopefully now recurrent)  
workshop is accountability for the past and, I agree, discussing the  
future. This has to be reflected in the WS title.

> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>
>  Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet  
> Governance<?

Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> technical and private means/instruments"
>
> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more  
> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about  
jurisdiction

> The main challenge seems to be that we have to combine a global  
> infrastructure with local and regional needs and expectations. How  
> about >Local Users in Global Internet Governance<? This includes,  
> among others, the consumer confronted with foreign custom duties as  
> well as the SME confonted with foreign intellectual property regimes.

I'm not sure this new title would reflect the initial idea, as  
there's no global governance yet, that's the point we would like to  
discuss, actually.

> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> implications for IG"
>
> In the Web 2.0 world you can often find both spaces in just one  
> entity. I would use a shortened version of Meryems proposal:  
> >Commons, public service and commercial values<.

Thinking twice about my own proposal, it seems weird to speak of  
'commercial values' here (or even elsewhere, but that's another  
story:)). What about "Coexistence of commons, public service and  
commercial spaces: IG issues"?

An academic, boring, methodological remark: we should better start  
with WS description, then the title would impose itself:))

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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Fri Apr 11 12:52:30 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:52:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Draft report on IGC Rio workshop on Fulfilling
In-Reply-To: <p06240819c4226d847c19@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <C42563EE.10CF7%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

After three days I've received a few private ok's from people involved in
the workshop and one public suggestion.  If there's nothing else by tomorrow
morning I'd like to post and get it off my desktop, one less loose end...

Thanks

Bill


On 4/9/08 6:38 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Bill, thanks.
> 
> How about adding a link to the transcript of the
> taking stock session noting the workshop
> organizers were invited to summarize their
> discussion 
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/Rio_Meeting/IGF2-TakingStock-15NOV07.txt>
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Adam mentioned a few weeks ago that the MAG
>> wants all the Rio workshop organizers that
>> didn¹t submit reports on their events to do so.
>>  Having moderated and been involved in framing
>> and organizing the IGC¹s workshop, I said I¹d
>> draft a report.  Parminder then suggested I post
>> it to the list before sending it to the
>> secretariat, so voila, here¹s a draft.  Almost
>> everyone involved as a co-sponsor or speaker is
>> here, so if my contemporaneous notes were
>> inaccurate in some way that matters and should
>> be corrected, please be in touch.  Of course, if
>> someone else has comments/suggestions feel free
>> to share, bearing in mind this is just a brief
>> workshop report and not a negotiated position
>> statement meriting extended debate.  While I
>> vaguely recall a mention of there being a
>> template for these things I couldn¹t find it, so
>> I followed a format used in several of the
>> workshop reports already posted at
>> <http://www.intgovforum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,>http://www.intgovfo
>> rum.org/rio_reports/rio_reports.html,
>> presumably those are conforming to something.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Internet Governance Forum 2007
>> Workshop Report
>> (draft version 09.04.08)
>> 
>> Fulfilling the Mandate of the IGF
>> 
>> Organizers
>> 
>> Åñ    The Internet Governance Caucus
>> Åñ    The Government of Jamaica
>> Åñ    The Global Telecentre Alliance
>> 
>> Panelists
>> 
>> William J. Drake (moderator)  
>> Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance
>> Graduate Institute for International Studies, Geneva
>> 
>> Karen Banks
>> Network Development Manager for the Association for Progressive
>> Communications
>> 
>> Ayesha Hassan
>> Senior Policy Manager, E-Business, IT and
>> Telecoms and Executive in charge of ICT policy,
>> the International Chamber of Commerce
>> 
>> Everton Frask Lucero
>> Head of the Science and Technology Division of
>> the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of
>> Brazil
>> 
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director of Public Policy, the Internet Society
>> 
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> Executive Director, IT for Change
>> 
>> Nicholas Thorne
>> United Kingdom¹s Ambassador and Permanent
>> Representative to the UN and other International
>> Organisations, Geneva
>> 
>> 
>> Summary of the Discussion
>> 
>> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
>> gave the IGF a mandate to perform twelve
>> important functions.  While the IGF has
>> succeeded in performing some of these, others
>> have proven to be more difficult to carry out
>> within the confines of annual meetings.
>>  Accordingly, the civil society Internet
>> Governance Caucus (IGC) organized this workshop
>> to foster multistakeholder dialogue on ways to
>> fulfill the mandate in light of two years of
>> experience.  Its objectives were to review the
>> thinking behind the mandate¹s formulation;
>> identify any mandated functions that would be
>> particularly value-adding but are not being
>> performed sufficiently in the IGF or elsewhere;
>> suggest operationally practical steps that the
>> IGF community could pursue in order to
>> facilitate their performance; and assess related
>> trends and challenges in the IGF.
>> 
>> The workshop began with some discussion of the
>> need for transparent and inclusive debate on the
>> mandate, especially given the stakeholder
>> expectations that had been raised by the Tunis
>> Agenda and the WSIS preparatory process.  It was
>> suggested that because some of the specific
>> functions agreed to in Tunis cannot easily be
>> performed solely by annual main sessions, it
>> could make sense to decentralize the effort and
>> pursue them in thematic workshops, dynamic
>> coalitions, and perhaps even working groups.
>>  Were this approach to be followed, there would
>> be a need for a transmission path through which
>> ideas and information could percolate from the
>> bottom up and be considered by the broader IGF
>> community, e.g. allowing rapporteurs from these
>> collaborations to participate in main session
>> panels in order to present their key findings
>> and outcomes.
>> 
>> In broad terms, one set of panelists expressed
>> satisfaction with what has been achieved to date
>> but wanted the IGF to expand and deepen its work
>> on the mandated functions, while another set of
>> panelists expressed caution about adopting
>> overly constraining interpretations of the
>> mandate and overly ambitious objectives for its
>> implementation.  For example, one panelist
>> stressed that the Tunis Agenda mandate means
>> what it says and embodies a negotiated consensus
>> that cannot be set aside.  Nevertheless, he
>> argued, at least six of the mandated
>> functions---such as promoting the WSIS
>> principles and making non-binding
>> recommendations---are not being performed, and
>> there are issues with the preparatory process
>> for meetings that affect the IGF¹s ability to
>> redress this situation.  Two other panelists
>> expressed related views, averring that the IGF
>> needs the institutional mechanisms and resources
>> to perform the functions and help build
>> consensus on key developmental objectives like
>> promoting access and the Internet¹s public goods
>> character.  In contrast, another panelist
>> cautioned against a formulaic ³check the box²
>> evaluation of the IGF¹s performance,
>> particularly absent any clear criteria for what
>> constitutes success in this setting.  Insofar as
>> some stakeholders are already tackling the
>> issues, it would be better to enhance their
>> ability to share information on their efforts
>> than to expect the IGF per se to take on
>> demanding responsibilities.  In a similar vein,
>> another panelist maintained that it was too
>> early to judge the IGF according to a checklist
>> of functions because participants are still
>> feeling their way with the multistakeholder
>> process, learning to accept different
>> perspectives, and building trust.  A final
>> panelist concurred, citing Rio¹s
>> nonconfrontational main session on critical
>> Internet resources as evidence of the progress
>> toward mutual understanding that can be achieved
>> with patience and multistakeholder dialogue.
>>  Nurturing and building upon that progress will
>> require avoiding intergovernmental-style
>> negotiations of recommendations or other outcome
>> texts.
>> 
>> The subsequent discussion with the large
>> audience in attendance was robust and
>> interactive. Audience members made a variety of
>> interventions on such points as: the adequacy,
>> or inadequacy, of current IGF efforts to
>> implement the mandate; the need to view the
>> mandate¹s functions in relation to each IGF
>> activity, rather than as segmented streams of
>> new activity, and to establish working methods
>> on this basis; governmental participants¹ desire
>> for recommendations or other conference
>> conclusions that they can take back to their
>> national capitals and use in making the case for
>> continuing participation; the apparent lack of
>> consensus on the mandate¹s vision within the
>> current MAG; the importance of engaging a
>> broader range of stakeholders and organizations
>> in the IGF; the insufficiency of uncoordinated
>> stakeholder initiatives as an alternative to
>> concerted mandate implementation within the IGF;
>> and the needs to replace the MAG with a
>> tripartite bureau structure, adopt nonbinding
>> recommendations, set new substantive foci for
>> the main sessions, and establish working groups
>> with competence for specific and pressing issues
>> that cannot be tackled effectively by panel
>> discussions of whatever kind.  Despite the
>> diversity of opinions expressed on these and
>> related matters, one point did appear to garner
>> rough consensus and was subsequently reported to
>> the main session on Taking Stock and the Way
>> Forward.  This was the abovementioned notion
>> that designated rapporteurs for workshops and
>> coalitions on thematic issues should be included
>> in appropriate main session panels in order to
>> report on their activities.
>> 
>> 
>> Relevant Organizations and ways of communicating with them
>> 
>> The workshop was relevant to all the
>> intergovernmental, private sector, and
>> multistakeholder bodies participating in the
>> IGF.  Communication with them in the context of
>> the IGF is the best option.
>> 
>> Possible follow-up
>> 
>> Most participants expressed interest in further
>> multistakeholder discussions about how the IGF
>> can best fulfill its mandate.  Accordingly, the
>> IGC will propose to organize a follow-up
>> workshop in Hyderabad that will delve more
>> deeply into selected aspects of this topic. In
>> addition, per the above, it would be useful if a
>> workshop rapporteur were allowed to participate
>> in the main session on Taking Stock and the Way
>> Forward in order to bring to the wider IGF
>> community the main points arising in the
>> workshop.   
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake  
>> Director, Project on the Information
>>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>>   Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
 


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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr 11 13:12:27 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:12:27 +0300
Subject: [governance] something new on the disability front?
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804111012t156f8017hc40fe68eda3c05c4@mail.gmail.com>

www.pornfortheblind.org (server seems overwhelmed at the moment)

more about it on http://www.wired.com as "Talk Dirty, Descriptively in
Porn for the Blind"

-- 
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 michael_leibrandt at web.de  Fri Apr 11 15:32:20 2008
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:32:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
Message-ID: <121434107@web.de>

Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> Hi there,
>
> Reading the proposed ws titles again after sipping some smooth 
> fresh coconut juice at the endless coast of Bahia, I think they 
> sound somewhat too >academic< and - boring.

Academic?? Check twice that you're not drinking a batida de coco 
instead of a coco verde:) Both are good, anyway..

***Just coconut juice, honestly. Maybe Brasil is simply too hot for Germans. Seriously: There are many people who get scared and run away when a ws title sounds like a scientific article. Me, for example ;-).

> I guess we`re not doing this exercise just for us, but want to 
> attract co-sponsors and participants with different and often 
> limited IG backgrounds. Based on Meryems comment, my suggestions 
> would be as follows:
>
> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>
> We`re moving towards the third IGF, so please no more discussions 
> about the present IGF settings and/or TA interpretations. How about 
> >Future Development of the IGF<?

Tabula rasa? Hell no! The aim of this (hopefully now recurrent) 
workshop is accountability for the past and, I agree, discussing the 
future. This has to be reflected in the WS title.

***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners - to use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense to contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the title as you suggested. 

> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>
> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet 
> Governance<?

Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> technical and private means/instruments"
>
> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more 
> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about 
jurisdiction

***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because I don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet (and don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de facto extraterritorial effects. 

> The main challenge seems to be that we have to combine a global 
> infrastructure with local and regional needs and expectations. How 
> about >Local Users in Global Internet Governance<? This includes, 
> among others, the consumer confronted with foreign custom duties as 
> well as the SME confonted with foreign intellectual property regimes.

I'm not sure this new title would reflect the initial idea, as 
there's no global governance yet, that's the point we would like to 
discuss, actually.

***Disagree. For example, ICANN is a global governance body that can effect local and regional users with its decisions. Or do we have a misunderstanding at this point?

> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> implications for IG"
>
> In the Web 2.0 world you can often find both spaces in just one 
> entity. I would use a shortened version of Meryems proposal: 
> >Commons, public service and commercial values<.

Thinking twice about my own proposal, it seems weird to speak of 
'commercial values' here (or even elsewhere, but that's another 
story:)). What about "Coexistence of commons, public service and 
commercial spaces: IG issues"?

***Still have a problem with the word >space<. Would be helpful to know more about your understanding. The time of a clear distinction between so called stakeholder groups has long gone.   

An academic, boring, methodological remark: we should better start 
with WS description, then the title would impose itself:))

***Fully agree. Though sometimes the title discussion leads to the content question. Anyway, for the substantial discussion I might finally switch to the Batida de Coco...


Michael


_______________________________________________________________________
Jetzt neu! Schützen Sie Ihren PC mit McAfee und WEB.DE. 30 Tage
kostenlos testen. http://www.pc-sicherheit.web.de/startseite/?mc=022220

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Fri Apr 11 22:24:02 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:54:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
In-Reply-To: <47FF9B95.5050103@arin.net>
References: <47FF9B95.5050103@arin.net>
Message-ID: <bb0e440a0804111924i766d65d8wec39fcec0579e9bd@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Member Services <info at arin.net>
Date: Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Subject: Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
To: nanog at merit.edu



 ARIN thanks those community members who participated in the recent
ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey. kc claffy presented an analysis of
the survey results earlier this week during ARIN XXI in Denver, Co.
You will find the link to this presentation on ARIN's IPv6 wiki at:
www.getipv6.net.

 We encourage community members to post IPv6 experiences, knowledge
and resources on the ARIN IPv6 wiki. Also, be sure to check back there
soon for data from the 8 April ARIN IPv6 Main Event, where
participants connected to an IPv6-only network.

 Regards,

 Member Services
 American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)






-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.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 avri at psg.com  Sat Apr 12 00:50:48 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:50:48 -0700
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820A7D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <121078121@web.de> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820A7D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B6CBCFB2-D075-4E71-A9B1-7522C531ECAE@psg.com>

Hi,

and it even takes a lot of optimism to believe something will even  
change with the tip of the iceberg, the JPA, in 2009.

a.

On 11 Apr 2008, at 08:26, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Don`t share the view
>> of some colleagues that the US elections will bring a quick solution
> to
>> the internationalization problem, therefore we need to continue that
>> debate.
>
> Just a correction: no one has suggested that the US elections would
> quickly solve the entire internationalization issue, what was  
> suggested
> was that the JPA might be concluded at the end of its term in Sept,
> 2009.
>
> The JPA, as we all know, is but one part of the 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
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Apr 12 01:17:46 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:17:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <121434107@web.de>
References: <121434107@web.de>
Message-ID: <p06240801c425e2b707d4@[221.115.9.42]>

>Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
>


<SNIP>

>  >
>>  1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>>
>>  We`re moving towards the third IGF, so please no more discussions
>>  about the present IGF settings and/or TA interpretations. How about
>>  >Future Development of the IGF<?
>
>Tabula rasa? Hell no! The aim of this (hopefully now recurrent)
>workshop is accountability for the past and, I agree, discussing the
>future. This has to be reflected in the WS title.
>
>***Is it really worth the time - and attractive 
>to potential listeners - to use the ws for ex 
>post analysis? People want to know why it makes 
>sense to contribute to the IGF process towards 
>India and beyond. At least many government guys 
>do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in 
>the title as you suggested.



Michael,

In many ways you a re right... but, one of the 
thoughts behind the workshop is that the IGF has 
a five year mandate and at some point a process 
will begin to consider whether it's desirable to 
continue the forum. A very clear requirement of 
the Tunis Agenda (76.) (this is not a TA 
interpretation, I think it's clear para 76 *will* 
happen.)

Hyderabad is the half-way point (year three of 
five) and would be a good opportunity to take 
stock of where we are.  Midterm project reviews 
are a pretty useful thing. A workshop that 
essentially asks what have we achieved, what more 
needs to be done to meet our expectations of the 
forum could be a helpful step towards this later 
review of the mandate.

Might be interesting to tie in with a survey/questionnaire.

Retrospectives don't have to be dull... in art 
they are often the first celebration and 
realization of genius.

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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Apr 12 04:03:09 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:03:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <121434107@web.de>
Message-ID: <C426395D.10D18%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by individual
members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

>From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of consensus
building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to mention
allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the two
weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
hour dash to finalize.

Few specific comments:

On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:

> Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners - to
> use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense to
> contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the title as
> you suggested. 

Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
"the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent to
deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion was
very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing now
as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We have
a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make clear
the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't go
back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
 
>> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>> 
>> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
>> Governance<?
> 
> Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> 
> ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really explored
since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has been
done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that is,
an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

>> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
>> technical and private means/instruments"
>> 
>> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
>> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> 
> For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> jurisdiction
> 
> ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because I
> don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet (and
> don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de facto
> extraterritorial effects.

Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the idea
was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of jurisdiction
and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing; other
architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get industry
or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we form
subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

>> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
>> implications for IG"

I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem this
panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems a
stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
walled off by IPR rules or what?

Thanks,

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 05:19:10 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:49:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C426395D.10D18%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080412091920.2E31B68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>


.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).

Yes, that’s the way to go. 

All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four topics. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> individual
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> consensus
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> mention
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> two
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> hour dash to finalize.
> 
> Few specific comments:
> 
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> to
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> to
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> title as
> > you suggested.
> 
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> to
> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> was
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> now
> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> have
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> clear
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> go
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> 
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >> Governance<?
> >
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> 
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> explored
> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> been
> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> is,
> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> 
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > jurisdiction
> >
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> I
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> (and
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> facto
> > extraterritorial effects.
> 
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> idea
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> jurisdiction
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> other
> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> industry
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> form
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 05:36:31 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:06:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <20080412091920.2E31B68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080412093645.025626882C@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four topics.
> 
> Parminder

However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will sponsor
or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be discussed.
The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
consultations are as follows. 


1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
the Status of It

2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around
them to develop them into workshop proposals. 


Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> 
> .  I
> > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of
> the
> > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
> latest,
> > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead
> times
> > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
> 
> Yes, that’s the way to go.
> 
> All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four topics.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> > To: Governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would
> be
> > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> > individual
> > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But
> if
> > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> >
> > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.
> Just
> > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> > consensus
> > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> > mention
> > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of
> the
> > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
> latest,
> > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead
> times
> > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> > two
> > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around
> and
> > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another
> 11th
> > hour dash to finalize.
> >
> > Few specific comments:
> >
> > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners
> -
> > to
> > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes
> sense
> > to
> > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> > title as
> > > you suggested.
> >
> > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot
> of
> > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk
> about
> > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> > to
> > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> > was
> > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> > now
> > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> > have
> > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> > clear
> > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> > go
> > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> >
> > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> > >> Governance<?
> > >
> > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> > >
> > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> >
> > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> > explored
> > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> > been
> > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to
> at
> > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> > is,
> > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a
> blast
> > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the
> term
> > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a
> better
> > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> >
> > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> > >> technical and private means/instruments"
> > >>
> > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> > >
> > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > > jurisdiction
> > >
> > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
> because
> > I
> > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework
> yet
> > (and
> > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to
> my
> > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> > facto
> > > extraterritorial effects.
> >
> > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> > idea
> > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> > jurisdiction
> > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
> decisions,
> > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise
> of
> > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> > other
> > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> > industry
> > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> > form
> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> >
> > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> > >> implications for IG"
> >
> > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> > this
> > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones
> (seems
> > a
> > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 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


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

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


From michael_leibrandt at web.de  Sat Apr 12 07:03:27 2008
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:03:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
Message-ID: <122166535@web.de>

Adam,

Thanks. Wasn`t it Orwell who said that controlling the past means controlling the future? Seriously, the idea of a survey/questionaire (or even interviews?) is very helpful. That would give us at least a chance to find out what people actualy think about the IGF exercise. Maybe IŽm completely wrong, but I have the feeling that beyond those nice Sunday speaches we always hear during consultations the real attitude is much more sceptical, especially regarding the cost/benefit ratio.

Michael 
_________________________________________________________________________
Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle 
Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179



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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Apr 12 07:12:42 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:12:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <p06240801c425e2b707d4@[221.115.9.42]>
References: <121434107@web.de> <p06240801c425e2b707d4@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <D533E0EC-BFFF-4CB8-93B3-331CEF0B5CDD@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 avr. 08 à 07:17, Adam Peake a écrit :

> Hyderabad is the half-way point (year three of five) and would be a  
> good opportunity to take stock of where we are.  Midterm project  
> reviews are a pretty useful thing. A workshop that essentially asks  
> what have we achieved, what more needs to be done to meet our  
> expectations of the forum could be a helpful step towards this  
> later review of the mandate.
>
> Might be interesting to tie in with a survey/questionnaire.

That would be really great, although necessitating a lot of work/ 
resources. How do ou see it:
- an iniative from the IGC, that would develop the questionnaire in  
view of its workshop or from the secretariat/the MAG?
- to whom should it be submitted: CS or all stakeholders (if the  
later, it probably need to be initiated by secretariat/MAG)

> Retrospectives don't have to be dull... in art they are often the  
> first celebration and realization of genius.

Aren't you becoming a bit emphatic or at least optimistic here:))

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Apr 12 07:15:05 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:15:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <20080412091920.2E31B68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412091920.2E31B68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <609B14AB-1FA8-4072-BEFF-F64467C6E91B@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 avr. 08 à 11:19, Parminder a écrit :

>
> .  I
>> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each  
>> of the
>> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week  
>> latest,
>> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long  
>> lead times
>> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>
> Yes, that’s the way to go.
>
> All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four  
> topics.

This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter  
volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and  
jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Apr 12 07:22:33 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:22:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] Events planned around and during ICANN meeting in Paris
Message-ID: <87CE02C1-6D02-445F-82AA-90CB484B3E93@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

I received this list of events planned around and during the ICANN  
meeting in Paris, compiled at this step by some good soul. It  
includes events non officially related to ICANN activities, like the  
academic workshop co-organized by GigaNet on June 23. Thought this  
list would be of interest to this list.
Meryem

> Tue 19-Jun      9:00     18:00    EuroDNS - Domainer Meeting
> Fri 20-Jun      9:00     18:00    EuroDNS - Domainer Meeting
> Fri 20-Jun      9:00     18:00    EGENI
> Sat 21-Jun      réservé           Intertest
> Sat 21-Jun      réservé           Possible ALAC (invitation  
> france at large)
> Sat 21-Jun      9:00     17:30    GNSO Council Working Session    T/ 
> B/D
> Sun 22-Jun      réservé           Possible ALAC (invitation  
> france at large).
> Sun 22-Jun      9:00     17:30    GNSO Council Working Session
> Sun 22-Jun      9:00     12:00   GAC Working Group on IDNs -  
> Discussion of Fast Track Modalities (CLOSED)
> Sun 22-Jun      10:30    11:00   COFFEE BREAK
> Sun 22-Jun      12:00    13:50   GAC Interaction with ALAC
> Sun 22-Jun      14:00    15:45   GAC Working Group on IDNs -  
> Discussion of IDN Issues Paper (CLOSED)
> Sun 22-Jun      15:30    16:00   COFFEE BREAK
> Sun 22-Jun      16:00    18:00   GAC Interaction with GNSO Council
> Mon 23-Jun      8:30     9:00     Welcome Ceremony
> Mon 23-Jun      9:00     10:00    ICANN Public Forum - President's  
> Report & Comments
> Mon 23-Jun      9:00     18:00   Giganet
> Mon 23-Jun      10:00    11:00   Workshop: Operating Plan
> Mon 23-Jun      10:00    12:30   Workshop: Presentation of  
> Recommendations of IDNC WG for Fast Track Process IDN ccTLDs
> Mon 23-Jun      10:00    12:30   Workshop: IPv6 and ICANN At-Large
> Mon 23-Jun      10:00    10:10   BUSINESS ACCESS: Welcome from the  
> Chairman
> Mon 23-Jun      10:10    12:30   BUSINESS ACCESS: Information  
> Session on New gTLDs & IDNs
> Mon 23-Jun      10:45    11:15   COFFEE BREAK
> Mon 23-Jun      11:15    12:30   Workshop: Protection for Registrants
> Mon 23-Jun      12:30    13:30   BUSINESS ACCESS: IPv6 Presentation
> Mon 23-Jun      12:30    13:30   LUNCH BREAK
> Mon 23-Jun      13:30    15:30   Workshop: JPA Discussion &  
> President's Strategy Committee Presentation: Public Input
> Mon 23-Jun      15:30    16:00   COFFEE BREAK
> Mon 23-Jun      16:00    18:00   Workshop: New gTLDs - Shaping the  
> Future of the Internet?
> Mon 23-Jun      19:00    21:30   Welcome Cocktail
> Tue 24-Jun      8:00     17:00    gTLD Registries Constituency Meeting
> Tue 24-Jun      9:00     13:00   GAC Plenary (CLOSED)
> Tue 24-Jun      9:00     17:00    Registrars Constituency Meeting
> Tue 24-Jun      9:00     17:00    Non-Commercial Business Users  
> Constituency (NCUC)
> Tue 24-Jun      9:30     17:30    ccNSO Members Meeting
> Tue 24-Jun      10:00    12:30   Cross Constituency Meeting
> Tue 24-Jun      10:30    11:00   COFFEE BREAK
> Tue 24-Jun      12:30    13:30   LUNCH BREAK
> Tue 24-Jun      14:00    17:00    Intellectual Property Interests  
> Constituency Meeting
> Tue 24-Jun      14:00    17:00   Internet Service & Connectivity  
> Providers Constituency (ISP)
> Tue 24-Jun      14:00    17:00    Commercial and Business Users  
> Constituency (CBUC)
> Tue 24-Jun      14:00    15:00   GAC Interaction with ccNSO Council
> Tue 24-Jun      15:00    15:30   COFFEE BREAK
> Tue 24-Jun      15:30    16:30   GAC Plenary (CLOSED)
> Tue 24-Jun      17:30    18:30   GAC Meeting with the ICANN Board  
> (OPEN SESSION)
> Wed 25-Jun      8:00     12:00    Open GNSO Council Meeting
> Wed 25-Jun      8:30     9:00     GAC Program Committee Meeting  
> (CLOSED)
> Wed 25-Jun      9:00     13:00   GAC Plenary (CLOSED)
> Wed 25-Jun      9:30     15:30    ccNSO Members Meeting
> Wed 25-Jun      10:00    10:30   COFFEE BREAK
> Wed 25-Jun      12:00    13:00   LUNCH BREAK
> Wed 25-Jun      13:00    14:00   GNSO Improvements Implementation
> Wed 25-Jun      13:00    14:00   Workshop: Internet Governance &  
> International Organisations
> Wed 25-Jun      14:00    18:00   GAC Drafting of Communique (CLOSED)
> Wed 25-Jun      14:00    16:30   SSAC Public Meeting - DNSSEC
> Wed 25-Jun      14:00    15:30   Workshop: At-Large Review
> Wed 25-Jun      16:00    19:00   ICANN Public Forum
> Wed 25-Jun      16:00    17:00   ccNSO Council Meeting
> Wed 25-Jun      19:00    23:00   Gala Event @ Hôtel de Ville (City  
> Hall)
> Thu 26-Jun      9:00     12:00    Workshop: IPv6 for Registries &  
> Registrars
> Thu 26-Jun      9:00     12:00    Workshop: IDNs
> Thu 26-Jun      10:00    10:30   COFFEE BREAK
> Thu 26-Jun      12:00    13:00   LUNCH BREAK
> Thu 26-Jun      13:00    14:30   Workshop: Translation Policy
> Thu 26-Jun      14:30    15:00   COFFEE BREAK
> Thu 26-Jun      15:00    16:00   Public Forum: Reports of  
> Supporting Organisations & Advisory Committees to the Board
> Thu 26-Jun      16:00    18:00   Meeting of the ICANN Board
> Fri 27-Jun      09:00    17:00    Multilinguistica 2008  (MLTF+)
> Sat 28-Jun      inconnu           ISOC BoD Meeting
> Sat 28-Jun      15:00    18:00    Ethitechnica 2008 (Intlnet+)
> Sun 29-Jun      inconnu           ISOC BoD Meeting
> Mon 30-Jun      réservé           FGI-FR (AFGI - général ou  
> préparatoire)
> Tue 1 July      réservé           Euro-IGF preparatory meeting
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 07:25:34 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 13:25:34 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
References: <122166535@web.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425BF6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

We all remember that the Tunis package (principles, IGF, EC³) was a compromise based on the understanding that 2005 is too early to make decisions. Stakeholders (and in particular governments) buyed time to keep the face and (probably) to prepare a new effort after a couple of years if things are getting clearer or the general political environment has changed. Question is: Are things now clearer? Has the environment changed? 
 
Political strategies are driven by the interests of the involved partners. Do you see some shifts in the interests of the various stakeholders? Do we see new challenges which put the old controversies into a different light, make it more relevant or more irrelevent? 
 
We should not forget, that regardless of all the speculations around "beyond the DNS" and "beyond IP" the next generation networks are on top of the DNS. I was in the recent "EU Future of the Internet" conference in Lake Bled where we had also US and Japan presentations on the NGN like GENI etc. http://www.fi-bled.eu/programme.php
 
I am rather sceptical with regard to the clean slate approach. I see more governance problems with the ONS or sensor based adressing systems (with IP enabled RFID chips). The problem is, that the ONS is at the moment based on one .com Domain, with other words controlled by VeriSign. Europeans are unhappy with the US controlled GPS and invest billions into GALILEO. I am afraid that a VerSign controlled ONS will be even more bad for the Europeans than the GPS. Do we have a governance alternatives? 
 
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 michael_leibrandt at web.de  Sat Apr 12 08:32:52 2008
From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:32:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
Message-ID: <122232664@web.de>

Wolfgang,

you rightly brought up the issue of economic and political power. The cs discussion on future IG (as well as general IS) settings does not only lack a clear vision of an alternative model, but also widely ignores the somewhat brutal realities of an ongoing process in which particular global players now want to make their claim for the decades to come. Internationalization understood as `present setting minus US government plus no other governments`is not only not a multistakehoder concept, but will also not be able to counter the forces you decribed pretty well. I know that categories of `power`are something cs does usually not feel very comfortable with. But as a fact, to achieve valuable goals powerful new coalitions are needed to make sure that the global IS remains an open place with low barriers to enter for everybody. This touches the question if the business community or democratic governments are the preffered partners for cs. To exclude the latter option by pointing to countries like Syria is like excluding more cs influence in global policy making by pointing to the Klu Klux Klan.

Michael 
______________________________________________________
Bis 50 MB Dateianhänge? Kein Problem!
http://freemail.web.de/club/landingpage.htm/?mc=025556

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 09:39:56 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:09:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412093645.025626882C@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080412134125.7423D68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>

 

Personally, I would like to propose a workshop on the issue of enhanced
cooperation (against whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we can
develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
What Is the Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb consultations into a
workshop proposal.

 

Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals  the second one on CIRs is
still unformed. Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs contained in
the EC proposition be proposed in this CIR slot? In that case we can develop
the above theme proposal.

 

 

BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a very significant posting on EC
at http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request .

 

To quote

“The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Sha Zukang
<http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection> , has written to Internet
Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC to provide an annual
performance report on the steps the organization has taken toward "enhanced
cooperation" on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.  This
request comes in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World Summit on the
Information Society.  (A copy of that letter is posted here
<http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf> .)”

 

I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept exclusively as a ‘bottom up’
autonomous set of activities among existing organization, which to me more
or less means nothing (sorry for being a bit skeptic) and which serves to
push away the issue of real political oversight of the these existing
organizations. And I understand that this is an important issue about which
we are concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael Leibrandt also
discuss this issue. 

 

No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should take the lead in bringing
this issue in the open and base its resolution (or a movement towards some
kind of resolution in the future) on open discussion rather than
behind-the-scene half-hearted efforts. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> 

> 

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> 

> However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will

> sponsor

> or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be

> discussed.

> The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb

> consultations are as follows.

> 

> 

> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is

> the Status of It

> 

> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

> 

> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

> 

> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

> 

> Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around

> them to develop them into workshop proposals.

> 

> 

> Parminder

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'

> > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> >

> >

> > .  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).

> >

> > Yes, that’s the way to go.

> >

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> >

> >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]

> > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM

> > > To: Governance

> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would

> > be

> > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand

> > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if

> > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by

> > > individual

> > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.

> But

> > if

> > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

> > >

> > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.

> > Just

> > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of

> > > consensus

> > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to

> > > mention

> > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise

> the

> > > two

> > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around

> > and

> > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another

> > 11th

> > > hour dash to finalize.

> > >

> > > Few specific comments:

> > >

> > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> > > >

> > > >>

> > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"

> > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential

> listeners

> > -

> > > to

> > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes

> > sense

> > > to

> > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least

> many

> > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the

> > > title as

> > > > you suggested.

> > >

> > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot

> > of

> > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached

> > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk

> > about

> > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was

> not

> > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not

> equivalent

> > > to

> > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop

> discussion

> > > was

> > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be

> doing

> > > now

> > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We

> > > have

> > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make

> > > clear

> > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I

> wouldn't

> > > go

> > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.

> > >

> > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"

> > > >>

> > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet

> > > >> Governance<?

> > > >

> > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> > > >

> > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> > >

> > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really

> > > explored

> > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has

> > > been

> > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to

> > at

> > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization,

> that

> > > is,

> > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a

> > blast

> > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the

> > term

> > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a

> > better

> > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

> > >

> > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,

> > > >> technical and private means/instruments"

> > > >>

> > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more

> > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

> > > >

> > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about

> > > > jurisdiction

> > > >

> > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<

> > because

> > > I

> > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework

> > yet

> > > (and

> > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD,

> for

> > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to

> > my

> > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de

> > > facto

> > > > extraterritorial effects.

> > >

> > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that

> the

> > > idea

> > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of

> > > jurisdiction

> > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court

> > decisions,

> > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but

> also

> > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,

> > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact

> of

> > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global

> > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise

> > of

> > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;

> > > other

> > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get

> > > industry

> > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If

> we

> > > form

> > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

> > >

> > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet

> -

> > > >> implications for IG"

> > >

> > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the

> problem

> > > this

> > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist

> and

> > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones

> > (seems

> > > a

> > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> > > walled off by IPR rules or what?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > 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

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080412/bf68f2e6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 09:54:07 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:24:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <20080412135547.45C6CA6C24@smtp2.electricembers.net>

>“The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Sha Zukang
<http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection> , has written to Internet
Society President and CEO


 

Also note that the quoted letter mentions

 

“In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special, Adviser for Internet Governance,
Mr. Nitin Desai, consulted with representatives of all stakeholder groups -
government, the private sector, and civil society, as well as technical and
academic communities - in order to find a common ground wit11 reference to
this process- In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report with the
results of these consultations. In August 2007,I was entrusted by the

Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation process, especially on the
next: steps to be taken.”

 

(end)

 

I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had with representatives of civil
society. Does anyone have information about it? And if he did do it with
representatives of other stakeholder groups they have been very tight lipped
about it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early last year asking for
information on the EC process and requesting that we, and CS, be included in
the deliberations. The letter was never acknowledged. 

 

I think we should write once again in protest against such exclusion of
civil society and IGC from this process. At the very least we should ask
them which representatives of civil society they conferred with, and what
exactly do they mean when they say ‘civil society’. Such ignoring of IGC,
and with what we understand as civil society, by a process that claims
multistakeholderism is something we need to strongly protest against


 

Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC, and during the discussions on
workshop proposals CS MAG members should defend CS’s right to deliberate
this important IG issue


 

Parminder  

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: enhanced cooperation

 

 

Personally, I would like to propose a workshop on the issue of enhanced
cooperation (against whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we can
develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
What Is the Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb consultations into a
workshop proposal.

 

Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals  the second one on CIRs is
still unformed. Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs contained in
the EC proposition be proposed in this CIR slot? In that case we can develop
the above theme proposal.

 

 

BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a very significant posting on EC
at http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request .

 

To quote

“The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Sha Zukang
<http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection> , has written to Internet
Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC to provide an annual
performance report on the steps the organization has taken toward "enhanced
cooperation" on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.  This
request comes in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World Summit on the
Information Society.  (A copy of that letter is posted here
<http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf> .)”

 

I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept exclusively as a ‘bottom up’
autonomous set of activities among existing organization, which to me more
or less means nothing (sorry for being a bit skeptic) and which serves to
push away the issue of real political oversight of the these existing
organizations. And I understand that this is an important issue about which
we are concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael Leibrandt also
discuss this issue. 

 

No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should take the lead in bringing
this issue in the open and base its resolution (or a movement towards some
kind of resolution in the future) on open discussion rather than
behind-the-scene half-hearted efforts. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> 

> 

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> 

> However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will

> sponsor

> or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be

> discussed.

> The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb

> consultations are as follows.

> 

> 

> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is

> the Status of It

> 

> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

> 

> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

> 

> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

> 

> Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around

> them to develop them into workshop proposals.

> 

> 

> Parminder

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'

> > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> >

> >

> > .  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).

> >

> > Yes, that’s the way to go.

> >

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> >

> >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]

> > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM

> > > To: Governance

> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would

> > be

> > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand

> > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if

> > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by

> > > individual

> > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.

> But

> > if

> > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

> > >

> > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.

> > Just

> > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of

> > > consensus

> > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to

> > > mention

> > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise

> the

> > > two

> > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around

> > and

> > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another

> > 11th

> > > hour dash to finalize.

> > >

> > > Few specific comments:

> > >

> > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> > > >

> > > >>

> > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"

> > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential

> listeners

> > -

> > > to

> > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes

> > sense

> > > to

> > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least

> many

> > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the

> > > title as

> > > > you suggested.

> > >

> > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot

> > of

> > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached

> > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk

> > about

> > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was

> not

> > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not

> equivalent

> > > to

> > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop

> discussion

> > > was

> > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be

> doing

> > > now

> > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We

> > > have

> > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make

> > > clear

> > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I

> wouldn't

> > > go

> > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.

> > >

> > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"

> > > >>

> > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet

> > > >> Governance<?

> > > >

> > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> > > >

> > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> > >

> > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really

> > > explored

> > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has

> > > been

> > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to

> > at

> > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization,

> that

> > > is,

> > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a

> > blast

> > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the

> > term

> > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a

> > better

> > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

> > >

> > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,

> > > >> technical and private means/instruments"

> > > >>

> > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more

> > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

> > > >

> > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about

> > > > jurisdiction

> > > >

> > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<

> > because

> > > I

> > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework

> > yet

> > > (and

> > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD,

> for

> > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to

> > my

> > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de

> > > facto

> > > > extraterritorial effects.

> > >

> > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that

> the

> > > idea

> > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of

> > > jurisdiction

> > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court

> > decisions,

> > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but

> also

> > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,

> > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact

> of

> > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global

> > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise

> > of

> > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;

> > > other

> > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get

> > > industry

> > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If

> we

> > > form

> > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

> > >

> > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet

> -

> > > >> implications for IG"

> > >

> > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the

> problem

> > > this

> > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist

> and

> > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones

> > (seems

> > > a

> > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> > > walled off by IPR rules or what?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > 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

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080412/3402a924/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 12 09:58:08 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:58:08 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
References: <20080412135547.45C6CA6C24@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425BF9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Does somebody has an overview who got this letter from Sha Zukang? Did UN member state governments got it? IGOs? ICANN? IETF? NRO? ICC? Would be good to know. 
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Sa 12.04.2008 15:54
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation



>"The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Sha Zukang <http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection> , has written to Internet Society President and CEO...

 

Also note that the quoted letter mentions

 

"In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special, Adviser for Internet Governance, Mr. Nitin Desai, consulted with representatives of all stakeholder groups - government, the private sector, and civil society, as well as technical and academic communities - in order to find a common ground wit11 reference to this process- In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report with the results of these consultations. In August 2007,I was entrusted by the

Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation process, especially on the next: steps to be taken."

 

(end)

 

I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had with representatives of civil society. Does anyone have information about it? And if he did do it with representatives of other stakeholder groups they have been very tight lipped about it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early last year asking for information on the EC process and requesting that we, and CS, be included in the deliberations. The letter was never acknowledged. 

 

I think we should write once again in protest against such exclusion of civil society and IGC from this process. At the very least we should ask them which representatives of civil society they conferred with, and what exactly do they mean when they say 'civil society'. Such ignoring of IGC, and with what we understand as civil society, by a process that claims multistakeholderism is something we need to strongly protest against...

 

Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC, and during the discussions on workshop proposals CS MAG members should defend CS's right to deliberate this important IG issue...

 

Parminder  

 

 

________________________________

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
Subject: enhanced cooperation

 

 

Personally, I would like to propose a workshop on the issue of enhanced cooperation (against whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we can develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb consultations into a workshop proposal.

 

Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals  the second one on CIRs is still unformed. Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs contained in the EC proposition be proposed in this CIR slot? In that case we can develop the above theme proposal.

 

 

BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a very significant posting on EC at http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request ..

 

To quote

"The Under-Secretary General of the United Nations, Sha Zukang <http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection> , has written to Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC to provide an annual performance report on the steps the organization has taken toward "enhanced cooperation" on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet.  This request comes in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society.  (A copy of that letter is posted here <http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf> .)"

 

I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept exclusively as a 'bottom up' autonomous set of activities among existing organization, which to me more or less means nothing (sorry for being a bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the issue of real political oversight of the these existing organizations. And I understand that this is an important issue about which we are concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael Leibrandt also discuss this issue. 

 

No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should take the lead in bringing this issue in the open and base its resolution (or a movement towards some kind of resolution in the future) on open discussion rather than behind-the-scene half-hearted efforts. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> 

> 

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> 

> However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will

> sponsor

> or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be

> discussed.

> The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb

> consultations are as follows.

> 

> 

> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is

> the Status of It

> 

> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

> 

> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

> 

> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

> 

> Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around

> them to develop them into workshop proposals.

> 

> 

> Parminder

> 

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]

> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM

> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'

> > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> >

> >

> > .  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).

> >

> > Yes, that's the way to go.

> >

> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four

> topics.

> >

> > Parminder

> >

> >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]

> > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM

> > > To: Governance

> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> > >

> > > Hi,

> > >

> > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would

> > be

> > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand

> > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if

> > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by

> > > individual

> > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.

> But

> > if

> > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

> > >

> > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.

> > Just

> > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of

> > > consensus

> > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to

> > > mention

> > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I

> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of

> > the

> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week

> > latest,

> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead

> > times

> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise

> the

> > > two

> > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around

> > and

> > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another

> > 11th

> > > hour dash to finalize.

> > >

> > > Few specific comments:

> > >

> > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> > > >

> > > >>

> > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"

> > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential

> listeners

> > -

> > > to

> > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes

> > sense

> > > to

> > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least

> many

> > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the

> > > title as

> > > > you suggested.

> > >

> > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot

> > of

> > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached

> > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk

> > about

> > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was

> not

> > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not

> equivalent

> > > to

> > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop

> discussion

> > > was

> > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be

> doing

> > > now

> > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We

> > > have

> > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make

> > > clear

> > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I

> wouldn't

> > > go

> > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.

> > >

> > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"

> > > >>

> > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet

> > > >> Governance<?

> > > >

> > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> > > >

> > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> > >

> > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really

> > > explored

> > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has

> > > been

> > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to

> > at

> > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization,

> that

> > > is,

> > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a

> > blast

> > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the

> > term

> > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a

> > better

> > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

> > >

> > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,

> > > >> technical and private means/instruments"

> > > >>

> > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more

> > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

> > > >

> > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about

> > > > jurisdiction

> > > >

> > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<

> > because

> > > I

> > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework

> > yet

> > > (and

> > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD,

> for

> > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to

> > my

> > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de

> > > facto

> > > > extraterritorial effects.

> > >

> > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that

> the

> > > idea

> > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of

> > > jurisdiction

> > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court

> > decisions,

> > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but

> also

> > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,

> > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact

> of

> > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global

> > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise

> > of

> > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;

> > > other

> > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get

> > > industry

> > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If

> we

> > > form

> > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

> > >

> > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet

> -

> > > >> implications for IG"

> > >

> > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the

> problem

> > > this

> > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist

> and

> > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones

> > (seems

> > > a

> > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> > > walled off by IPR rules or what?

> > >

> > > Thanks,

> > >

> > > 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

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From andersj at elon.edu  Sat Apr 12 10:30:02 2008
From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:30:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <122166535@web.de>
Message-ID: <C4263FAB.75FF%andersj@elon.edu>

Hello,

Parminder just recently invited me to join this list. My name is Janna
Anderson. I do research - mostly in journalistic interview style - for the
Pew Internet & American Life Project, through which I know many on this
list. (And I am thankful, always, for your assistance!) Regarding the idea
of a survey, Imagining the Internet, my project that is partially backed by
Pew, conducted a policy survey in Rio, and while I am certain you would ask
different, better-focused questions, possibly in different ways, the results
will probably be of interest to you. My colleague, Dr. Constance Book, is
just finishing the report, so I can't share the results now. I will post the
link when it goes live. In the meantime, I can share the IGF Rio survey
questions - to which we had 206 respondents. Nearly all completed the survey
in Rio at IGF. I attached the questions in a Word document attachment.

As many of you know, you can view our reports from IGF Rio at
http://www.imaginingtheinternet.org. Please inform me if you see any
correctable errors in the content from IGF; we are trying to build and
maintain a useful record, relying on spare resources. We make some mistakes
:-).

Janna

On 4/12/08 7:03 AM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:

> Adam,
> 
> Thanks. Wasn`t it Orwell who said that controlling the past means controlling
> the future? Seriously, the idea of a survey/questionaire (or even interviews?)
> is very helpful. That would give us at least a chance to find out what people
> actualy think about the IGF exercise. Maybe IŽm completely wrong, but I have
> the feeling that beyond those nice Sunday speaches we always hear during
> consultations the real attitude is much more sceptical, especially regarding
> the cost/benefit ratio.
> 
> Michael 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle
> Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-- 
Janna Quitney Anderson
Director of Imagining the Internet
www.imaginingtheinternet.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: igf Rio survey questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 81920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080412/8adab9ea/attachment.doc>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 10:50:09 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:20:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <609B14AB-1FA8-4072-BEFF-F64467C6E91B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20080412145024.D895568843@smtp1.electricembers.net>



> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.

Meryem, Bret and Ian

Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start developing this
proposal. Thanks. 

Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of the stuff
from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to help in
developing the proposal? 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> 
> Le 12 avr. 08 à 11:19, Parminder a écrit :
> 
> >
> > .  I
> >> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each
> >> of the
> >> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
> >> latest,
> >> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
> >> lead times
> >> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
> >
> > Yes, that’s the way to go.
> >
> > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
> > topics.
> 
> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
> 
> Best,
> Meryem____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Apr 12 10:52:24 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 23:52:24 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412135547.45C6CA6C24@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412135547.45C6CA6C24@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p0624081ac4267b9fb2ba@[192.168.1.193]>

The only consultation process I remember was 
Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to 
contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I 
think it was at the end of one of the open 
consultations last year (May, September?).  He 
said people should feel free to contact him, and 
he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few 
days and his door was open to anyone.

No idea who he might have spoken to.

About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what 
Charles Geiger said about the enhanced 
cooperation report when we met him in Geneva 
during the last IGF consultation?

Adam


>  >³The Under-Secretary General of the United 
>Nations, 
><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha 
>Zukang, has written to Internet Society 
>President and CEOŠ
>
>Also note that the quoted letter mentions
>
>³In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special, 
>Adviser for Internet Governance, Mr. Nitin 
>Desai, consulted with representatives of all 
>stakeholder groups - government, the private 
>sector, and civil society, as well as technical 
>and academic communities - in order to find a 
>common ground wit11 reference to this process- 
>In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report 
>with the results of these consultations. In 
>August 2007,I was entrusted by the
>Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation 
>process, especially on the next: steps to be 
>taken.²
>
>(end)
>
>I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had 
>with representatives of civil society. Does 
>anyone have information about it? And if he did 
>do it with representatives of other stakeholder 
>groups they have been very tight lipped about 
>it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early 
>last year asking for information on the EC 
>process and requesting that we, and CS, be 
>included in the deliberations. The letter was 
>never acknowledged.
>
>I think we should write once again in protest 
>against such exclusion of civil society and IGC 
>from this process. At the very least we should 
>ask them which representatives of civil society 
>they conferred with, and what exactly do they 
>mean when they say Œcivil society¹. Such 
>ignoring of IGC, and with what we understand as 
>civil society, by a process that claims 
>multistakeholderism is something we need to 
>strongly protest againstŠ
>
>Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC, 
>and during the discussions on workshop proposals 
>CS MAG members should defend CS¹s right to 
>deliberate this important IG issueŠ
>
>Parminder  
>
>
>
>From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
>To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
>Subject: enhanced cooperation
>
>
>Personally, I would like to propose a workshop 
>on the issue of enhanced cooperation (against 
>whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we 
>can develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What 
>Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the 
>Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb 
>consultations into a workshop proposal.
>
>Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals 
> the second one on CIRs is still unformed. 
>Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs 
>contained in the EC proposition be proposed in 
>this CIR slot? In that case we can develop the 
>above theme proposal.
>
>
>BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a 
>very significant posting on EC at 
><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request>http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request 
>.
>
>To quote
>³The Under-Secretary General of the United 
>Nations, 
><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha 
>Zukang, has written to Internet Society 
>President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC 
>to provide an annual performance report on the 
>steps the organization has taken toward 
>"enhanced cooperation" on public policy issues 
>pertaining to the Internet.  This request comes 
>in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World 
>Summit on the Information Society.  (A copy of 
>that letter is posted 
><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf>here.)²
>
>I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept 
>exclusively as a Œbottom up¹ autonomous set of 
>activities among existing organization, which to 
>me more or less means nothing (sorry for being a 
>bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the 
>issue of real political oversight of the these 
>existing organizations. And I understand that 
>this is an important issue about which we are 
>concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael 
>Leibrandt also discuss this issue.
>
>No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should 
>take the lead in bringing this issue in the open 
>and base its resolution (or a movement towards 
>some kind of resolution in the future) on open 
>discussion rather than behind-the-scene 
>half-hearted efforts.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>  > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM
>  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  >
>  >
>  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>  > topics.
>  > >
>  > > Parminder
>  >
>  > However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will
>  > sponsor
>  > or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be
>  > discussed.
>  > The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
>  > consultations are as follows.
>  >
>  >
>  > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
>  > the Status of It
>  >
>  > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
>  >
>  > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>  >
>  > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>  >
>  > Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass around
>  > them to develop them into workshop proposals.
>  >
>  >
>  > Parminder
>  >
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>  > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
>  > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
>  > > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > .  I
>  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of
>  > > the
>  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
>  > > latest,
>  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead
>  > > times
>  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>  > >
>  > > Yes, that¹s the way to go.
>  > >
>  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>  > topics.
>  > >
>  > > Parminder
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>  > > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
>  > > > To: Governance
>  > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  > > >
>  > > > Hi,
>  > > >
>  > > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would
>  > > be
>  > > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
>  > > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
>  > > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
>  > > > individual
>  > > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.
>  > But
>  > > if
>  > > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
>  > > >
>  > > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.
>  > > Just
>  > > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
>  > > > consensus
>  > > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
>  > > > mention
>  > > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
>  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of
>  > > the
>  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
>  > > latest,
>  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead
>  > > times
>  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise
>  > the
>  > > > two
>  > > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around
>  > > and
>  > > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another
>  > > 11th
>  > > > hour dash to finalize.
>  > > >
>  > > > Few specific comments:
>  > > >
>  > > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
>  > > wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
>  > > > >
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>  > > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential
>  > listeners
>  > > -
>  > > > to
>  > > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes
>  > > sense
>  > > > to
>  > > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least
>  > many
>  > > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
>  > > > title as
>  > > > > you suggested.
>  > > >
>  > > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot
>  > > of
>  > > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
>  > > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk
>  > > about
>  > > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was
>  > not
>  > > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not
>  > equivalent
>  > > > to
>  > > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop
>  > discussion
>  > > > was
>  > > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be
>  > doing
>  > > > now
>  > > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
>  > > > have
>  > > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
>  > > > clear
>  > > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I
>  > wouldn't
>  > > > go
>  > > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
>  > > >
>  > > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
>  > > > >> Governance<?
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
>  > > >
>  > > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
>  > > > explored
>  > > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
>  > > > been
>  > > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to
>  > > at
>  > > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization,
>  > that
>  > > > is,
>  > > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a
>  > > blast
>  > > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the
>  > > term
>  > > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a
>  > > better
>  > > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
>  > > >
>  > > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
>  > > > >> technical and private means/instruments"
>  > > > >>
>  > > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
>  > > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
>  > > > >
>  > > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
>  > > > > jurisdiction
>  > > > >
>  > > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
>  > > because
>  > > > I
>  > > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework
>  > > yet
>  > > > (and
>  > > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD,
>  > for
>  > > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to
>  > > my
>  > > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
>  > > > facto
>  > > > > extraterritorial effects.
>  > > >
>  > > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that
>  > the
>  > > > idea
>  > > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
>  > > > jurisdiction
>  > > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
>  > > decisions,
>  > > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but
>  > also
>  > > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
>  > > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact
>  > of
>  > > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
>  > > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise
>  > > of
>  > > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
>  > > > other
>  > > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
>  > > > industry
>  > > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If
>  > we
>  > > > form
>  > > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
>  > > >
>  > > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet
>  > -
>  > > > >> implications for IG"
>  > > >
>  > > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
>  > problem
>  > > > this
>  > > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist
>  > and
>  > > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones
>  > > (seems
>  > > > a
>  > > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
>  > > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
>  > > >
>  > > > Thanks,
>  > > >
>  > > > 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
>  >
>  >
>  > ____________________________________________________________
>  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >
>  > For all list information and functions, see:
>  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Apr 12 10:56:57 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:56:57 +0800
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412134125.7423D68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412134125.7423D68844@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <AD6DB712-98B4-472A-B5B9-E6C613840A44@Malcolm.id.au>

On 12/04/2008, at 9:39 PM, Parminder wrote:
>
> BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a very significant  
> posting on EC athttp://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request 
>  .
>
> ...
>
> I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept exclusively as a  
> ‘bottom up’ autonomous set of activities among existing  
> organization, which to me more or less means nothing (sorry for  
> being a bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the issue of real  
> political oversight of the these existing organizations. And I  
> understand that this is an important issue about which we are  
> concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael Leibrandt also  
> discuss this issue.


Quite remarkable.  And the response is obvious, surely: ISOC (if it is  
the sole civil society [sic] organisation contacted by the Under- 
Secretary-General) should write back to state something like this:

"We have little progress to report towards the development of a  
process of enhanced cooperation on  Internet governance between all  
relevant organisations, as we interpret the Tunis Agenda to require  
that this process be undertaken within an overarching framework of  
multi-stakeholder policy oversight that does not yet exist.  We  
suggest that, consistently with the terms of the Tunis Agenda, the  
Internet Governance Forum should be constituted as the venue within  
which for policy development to be led by governments in consultation  
with all other stakeholders."

OK, so that last part, in particular, doesn't even remotely accord  
with ISOC's views, but you get the gist.

-- 
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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Apr 12 11:13:09 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:13:09 +0200
Subject: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <20080412145024.D895568843@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <C4269E25.10D45%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>



On 4/12/08 4:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> 
>> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
>> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
>> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
> 
> Meryem, Bret and Ian
> 
> Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start developing this
> proposal. Thanks.
> 
> Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of the stuff
> from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to help in
> developing the proposal?

As I said earlier today,

On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
wrote:

> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 11:37:34 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:07:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ac4267b9fb2ba@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <20080412153802.67823684FE@smtp1.electricembers.net>


I am enclosing the letter we sent to Nitin Jan 07. 

> The only consultation process I remember was
> Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
> contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
> think it was at the end of one of the open
> consultations last year (May, September?).  He
> said people should feel free to contact him, and
> he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
> days and his door was open to anyone.

Adam

I do not at all recollect any such invitation from Nitin in an open consultation (I may be wrong and he may have said something in the passing, which hardly constitutes an invitation to stakeholders to participate in the process). If we knew we would have availed of this invitation, especially when we had asked for such an invitation in our letter to him a few months earlier. Are you sure he said any such thing in an open consultation? I only remember him saying during the open consultations that EC should not be discussed here (in the consultations). 


> About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
> Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
> cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
> during the last IGF consultation?

I think he said that UN SG will be giving a report on enhanced cooperation to the CSTD for the May session, I remember nothing more. This exercise of collection of 'annual performance reports' seems to be a part of preparing that report in absence of anything else of any significance to mention there. Will be interesting to see what, for instance, ICANN, reports back on its enhanced cooperation (EC) activity? It will be more interesting to see if the SG's report to CSTD accepts the spin on what is EC that comes from ICANN etc reports as actually what they also see EC as.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:22 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
> 
> The only consultation process I remember was
> Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
> contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
> think it was at the end of one of the open
> consultations last year (May, September?).  He
> said people should feel free to contact him, and
> he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
> days and his door was open to anyone.
> 
> No idea who he might have spoken to.
> 
> About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
> Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
> cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
> during the last IGF consultation?
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> >  >³The Under-Secretary General of the United
> >Nations,
> ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
> >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
> >President and CEOŠ
> >
> >Also note that the quoted letter mentions
> >
> >³In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special,
> >Adviser for Internet Governance, Mr. Nitin
> >Desai, consulted with representatives of all
> >stakeholder groups - government, the private
> >sector, and civil society, as well as technical
> >and academic communities - in order to find a
> >common ground wit11 reference to this process-
> >In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report
> >with the results of these consultations. In
> >August 2007,I was entrusted by the
> >Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation
> >process, especially on the next: steps to be
> >taken.²
> >
> >(end)
> >
> >I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had
> >with representatives of civil society. Does
> >anyone have information about it? And if he did
> >do it with representatives of other stakeholder
> >groups they have been very tight lipped about
> >it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early
> >last year asking for information on the EC
> >process and requesting that we, and CS, be
> >included in the deliberations. The letter was
> >never acknowledged.
> >
> >I think we should write once again in protest
> >against such exclusion of civil society and IGC
> >from this process. At the very least we should
> >ask them which representatives of civil society
> >they conferred with, and what exactly do they
> >mean when they say Œcivil society¹. Such
> >ignoring of IGC, and with what we understand as
> >civil society, by a process that claims
> >multistakeholderism is something we need to
> >strongly protest againstŠ
> >
> >Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC,
> >and during the discussions on workshop proposals
> >CS MAG members should defend CS¹s right to
> >deliberate this important IG issueŠ
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
> >To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
> >Subject: enhanced cooperation
> >
> >
> >Personally, I would like to propose a workshop
> >on the issue of enhanced cooperation (against
> >whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we
> >can develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What
> >Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the
> >Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb
> >consultations into a workshop proposal.
> >
> >Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals
> > the second one on CIRs is still unformed.
> >Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs
> >contained in the EC proposition be proposed in
> >this CIR slot? In that case we can develop the
> >above theme proposal.
> >
> >
> >BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a
> >very significant posting on EC at
> ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request>http://wi
> ki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request
> >.
> >
> >To quote
> >³The Under-Secretary General of the United
> >Nations,
> ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
> >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
> >President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC
> >to provide an annual performance report on the
> >steps the organization has taken toward
> >"enhanced cooperation" on public policy issues
> >pertaining to the Internet.  This request comes
> >in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World
> >Summit on the Information Society.  (A copy of
> >that letter is posted
> ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf>her
> e.)²
> >
> >I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept
> >exclusively as a Œbottom up¹ autonomous set of
> >activities among existing organization, which to
> >me more or less means nothing (sorry for being a
> >bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the
> >issue of real political oversight of the these
> >existing organizations. And I understand that
> >this is an important issue about which we are
> >concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael
> >Leibrandt also discuss this issue.
> >
> >No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should
> >take the lead in bringing this issue in the open
> >and base its resolution (or a movement towards
> >some kind of resolution in the future) on open
> >discussion rather than behind-the-scene
> >half-hearted efforts.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >  > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >  > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM
> >  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >  > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
> >  > topics.
> >  > >
> >  > > Parminder
> >  >
> >  > However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will
> >  > sponsor
> >  > or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be
> >  > discussed.
> >  > The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
> >  > consultations are as follows.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
> What Is
> >  > the Status of It
> >  >
> >  > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
> Internet
> >  >
> >  > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
> >  >
> >  > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> >  >
> >  > Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass
> around
> >  > them to develop them into workshop proposals.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > Parminder
> >  >
> >  > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> >  > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
> >  > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
> >  > > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > .  I
> >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
> each of
> >  > > the
> >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
> week
> >  > > latest,
> >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
> lead
> >  > > times
> >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
> >  > >
> >  > > Yes, that¹s the way to go.
> >  > >
> >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
> >  > topics.
> >  > >
> >  > > Parminder
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> >  > > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> >  > > > To: Governance
> >  > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Hi,
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity
> would
> >  > > be
> >  > > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust
> demand
> >  > > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community'
> if
> >  > > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> >  > > > individual
> >  > > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the
> program.
> >  > But
> >  > > if
> >  > > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize
> properly.
> >  > > Just
> >  > > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> >  > > > consensus
> >  > > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not
> to
> >  > > > mention
> >  > > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial"
> etc.  I
> >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
> each of
> >  > > the
> >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
> week
> >  > > latest,
> >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
> lead
> >  > > times
> >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
> Otherwise
> >  > the
> >  > > > two
> >  > > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going
> around
> >  > > and
> >  > > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do
> another
> >  > > 11th
> >  > > > hour dash to finalize.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Few specific comments:
> >  > > >
> >  > > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt"
> <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
> >  > > wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> >  > > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential
> >  > listeners
> >  > > -
> >  > > > to
> >  > > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it
> makes
> >  > > sense
> >  > > > to
> >  > > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At
> least
> >  > many
> >  > > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined
> in the
> >  > > > title as
> >  > > > > you suggested.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent
> a lot
> >  > > of
> >  > > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we
> approached
> >  > > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to
> talk
> >  > > about
> >  > > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate
> was
> >  > not
> >  > > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not
> >  > equivalent
> >  > > > to
> >  > > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop
> >  > discussion
> >  > > > was
> >  > > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be
> >  > doing
> >  > > > now
> >  > > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws
> report.  We
> >  > > > have
> >  > > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to
> make
> >  > > > clear
> >  > > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I
> >  > wouldn't
> >  > > > go
> >  > > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce
> time.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >  > > > >> Governance<?
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not
> really
> >  > > > explored
> >  > > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be
> claimed has
> >  > > > been
> >  > > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie,
> but to
> >  > > at
> >  > > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-
> nationalization,
> >  > that
> >  > > > is,
> >  > > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open
> up a
> >  > > blast
> >  > > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether
> the
> >  > > term
> >  > > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find
> a
> >  > > better
> >  > > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> >  > > >
> >  > > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal,
> contractual,
> >  > > > >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >  > > > >>
> >  > > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >  > > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> >  > > > > jurisdiction
> >  > > > >
> >  > > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
> >  > > because
> >  > > > I
> >  > > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal
> framework
> >  > > yet
> >  > > > (and
> >  > > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on
> gTLD,
> >  > for
> >  > > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem
> is, to
> >  > > my
> >  > > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more
> have de
> >  > > > facto
> >  > > > > extraterritorial effects.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought
> that
> >  > the
> >  > > > idea
> >  > > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> >  > > > jurisdiction
> >  > > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
> >  > > decisions,
> >  > > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business)
> but
> >  > also
> >  > > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to
> YouTube,
> >  > > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting
> impact
> >  > of
> >  > > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a
> "global
> >  > > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the
> exercise
> >  > > of
> >  > > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more
> appealing;
> >  > > > other
> >  > > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to
> get
> >  > > > industry
> >  > > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed.
> If
> >  > we
> >  > > > form
> >  > > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this
> one.
> >  > > >
> >  > > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the
> Internet
> >  > -
> >  > > > >> implications for IG"
> >  > > >
> >  > > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
> >  > problem
> >  > > > this
> >  > > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot
> coexist
> >  > and
> >  > > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit
> ones
> >  > > (seems
> >  > > > a
> >  > > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting
> partially
> >  > > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> >  > > >
> >  > > > Thanks,
> >  > > >
> >  > > > 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
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ____________________________________________________________
> >  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >  >
> >  > For all list information and functions, see:
> >  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: IGC letter to Nitin Desai.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 21100 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080412/6376c366/attachment.pdf>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 11:42:54 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:12:54 +0530
Subject: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C4269E25.10D45%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080412154310.2AB2668851@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> As I said earlier today,
> 
> On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> wrote:
> 
> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

Yes, sorry. Will you then get on the sub group with Meyrem, Ian and Bret.
Thanks. 

Since one of you have to, Bret will you please convene the group. 

Parminder


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:43 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/12/08 4:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
> >> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
> >> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
> >
> > Meryem, Bret and Ian
> >
> > Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start developing
> this
> > proposal. Thanks.
> >
> > Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of the
> stuff
> > from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to
> help in
> > developing the proposal?
> 
> As I said earlier today,
> 
> On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> wrote:
> 
> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Apr 12 11:48:52 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:48:52 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <p0624081ac4267b9fb2ba@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <20080412135547.45C6CA6C24@smtp2.electricembers.net> <p0624081ac4267b9fb2ba@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <721D3260-75F6-4FD8-9847-8814E6ABD0BB@ras.eu.org>


Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :

> The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open  
> invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,  
> but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last  
> year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact  
> him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and  
> his door was open to anyone.
>
> No idea who he might have spoken to.

This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's  
report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also  
requested.

Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its  
contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers  
to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current  
consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly  
requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through  
informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http:// 
www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf

Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http:// 
www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)

During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many  
participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai  
answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/ 
IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin  
first by a
word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.   
And that
is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.   
Basically, if
you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of  
IGF, in
the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It  
was just
said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of  
process or
what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in  
the case
of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph  
specifying
terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of  
IGF. So,
essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with  
people to
find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which  
could be
found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what  
this
process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to  
the
Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that  
there isn't
that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something  
different, a
different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you  
know, there is
a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling  
this, there
will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may  
lead to
certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we  
face there
is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."   
Unlike in the
case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably  
clear.  There
was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.  
So what we
did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in  
diplomacy, the
best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You  
can't
necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I  
do accept
that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we  
do, at some
point. "

In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see  
what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the  
sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he  
provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new  
UN SG was elected.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 12 12:52:30 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:22:30 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <721D3260-75F6-4FD8-9847-8814E6ABD0BB@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>



It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are actively pursued
to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered even when
it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the letter
went after the 2006 process).

I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil
society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list. 

And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups. Apparently none
were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-stakeholderism. Or even
by including ISOC, and its IETF group. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :
> 
> > The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open
> > invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,
> > but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last
> > year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact
> > him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and
> > his door was open to anyone.
> >
> > No idea who he might have spoken to.
> 
> This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's
> report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
> This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also
> requested.
> 
> Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its
> contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers
> to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current
> consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly
> requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through
> informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http://
> www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
> 
> Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http://
> www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)
> 
> During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many
> participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai
> answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/
> IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
> ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin
> first by a
> word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.
> And that
> is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.
> Basically, if
> you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of
> IGF, in
> the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It
> was just
> said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of
> process or
> what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in
> the case
> of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph
> specifying
> terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of
> IGF. So,
> essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
> consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with
> people to
> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
> could be
> found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what
> this
> process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to
> the
> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that
> there isn't
> that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something
> different, a
> different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you
> know, there is
> a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
> Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling
> this, there
> will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may
> lead to
> certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we
> face there
> is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."
> Unlike in the
> case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably
> clear.  There
> was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.
> So what we
> did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in
> diplomacy, the
> best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You
> can't
> necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I
> do accept
> that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we
> do, at some
> point. "
> 
> In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see
> what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the
> sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he
> provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new
> UN SG was elected.
> 
> Meryem
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sat Apr 12 13:56:31 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:56:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <BFB820CD-91E6-46FF-A2BC-FA35DFD65E10@ras.eu.org>

Parminder, all,

Here's my understanding of the situation and of how we should proceed  
as IGC:

What is important is the information contained in your first mail in  
this thread, i.e. that the UN under-SG has found, in March 2008, that  
something should be reported on 'enhanced cooperation', probably in  
view of the next "cluster of WSIS-related events" (13-30 May in  
Geneva: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp? 
year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0).

Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as  
far as we know from publicly available information), it might have  
been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide  
an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to  
ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a  
report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).  
i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS  
organization.

I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be  
consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't  
have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".

Worth noticing: the letter is sent by the UN under-SG, who, according  
to the letter, "In August 2007 was entrusted by the Secretary-General  
to continue the consultation process, especially on the next: steps  
to be taken.". Not Desai anymore, but rather the UN under-SG. "Mr.  
Mr. Sha Zukang became the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for  
Economic and Social Affairs on 1 July, 2007" (http://www.un.org/esa/ 
desa/ousg/#bioSection).

One might suspect that, in line with his comments during May 2007 IGF  
open consultations (see my previous mail), Desai made clear in his  
2006 report to the UN SG that nothing could be expected on the  
'enhanced cooperation' front, in the current state of affairs.  
Quoting him again: "For six months, I personally met with people to
find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which  
could be found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as  
to what this process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the  
report of that to the
Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that  
there isn't that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try  
something different, a different approach.  So let us see."  
Apparently, we now start seeing.

What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to  
the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC  
(as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and  
asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced  
cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to  
publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of  
transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy  
of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS  
constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially  
proposed.

Best,
Meryem

Le 12 avr. 08 à 18:52, Parminder a écrit :

>
>
> It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are  
> actively pursued
> to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
> multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered  
> even when
> it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the  
> letter
> went after the 2006 process).
>
> I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
> multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil
> society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list.
>
> And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups.  
> Apparently none
> were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
> institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi- 
> stakeholderism. Or even
> by including ISOC, and its IETF group.
>
> Parminder
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>>
>>
>> Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>
>>> The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open
>>> invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,
>>> but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last
>>> year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact
>>> him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and
>>> his door was open to anyone.
>>>
>>> No idea who he might have spoken to.
>>
>> This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's
>> report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
>> This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also
>> requested.
>>
>> Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its
>> contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers
>> to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current
>> consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly
>> requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through
>> informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http://
>> www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
>>
>> Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http://
>> www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)
>>
>> During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many
>> participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai
>> answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/
>> IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
>> ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin
>> first by a
>> word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.
>> And that
>> is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.
>> Basically, if
>> you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of
>> IGF, in
>> the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It
>> was just
>> said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of
>> process or
>> what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in
>> the case
>> of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph
>> specifying
>> terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of
>> IGF. So,
>> essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
>> consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with
>> people to
>> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
>> could be
>> found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what
>> this
>> process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to
>> the
>> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that
>> there isn't
>> that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something
>> different, a
>> different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you
>> know, there is
>> a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
>> Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling
>> this, there
>> will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may
>> lead to
>> certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we
>> face there
>> is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."
>> Unlike in the
>> case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably
>> clear.  There
>> was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.
>> So what we
>> did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in
>> diplomacy, the
>> best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You
>> can't
>> necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I
>> do accept
>> that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we
>> do, at some
>> point. "
>>
>> In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see
>> what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the
>> sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he
>> provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new
>> UN SG was elected.
>>
>> Meryem
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Apr 12 16:16:56 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:16:56 +1000
Subject: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C4269E25.10D45%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <00c401c89cda$30e9ee60$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Before we do huddle on this, if anyone on the larger group has suggestions
for speakers we could invite pls send them either to me or to the list.

I did approach Justice Kirby of the Australian High Court who has spoken
prominently on these issues, unfortunately he can't come. A good legal mind
or two would be good for this one on transboundary data flow, transboundary
jurisdictional issues etc.

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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: 13 April 2008 01:13
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/12/08 4:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
> >> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
> >> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
> >
> > Meryem, Bret and Ian
> >
> > Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start developing
> this
> > proposal. Thanks.
> >
> > Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of the
> stuff
> > from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to
> help in
> > developing the proposal?
> 
> As I said earlier today,
> 
> On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> wrote:
> 
> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date:
> 12/04/2008 11:32
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date: 12/04/2008
11:32
 

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sun Apr 13 04:08:08 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:08:08 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412153802.67823684FE@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412153802.67823684FE@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240801c4273ad411bd@[192.168.1.2]>

>I am enclosing the letter we sent to Nitin Jan 07.
>
>>  The only consultation process I remember was
>>  Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
>>  contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
>>  think it was at the end of one of the open
>>  consultations last year (May, September?).  He
>>  said people should feel free to contact him, and
>>  he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
>>  days and his door was open to anyone.
>
>Adam
>
>I do not at all recollect any such invitation 
>from Nitin in an open consultation


Meryem remembers correctly, wasn't last year, 
Nitin's request was 2006. It's in the transcript 
of the May 2006 meeting 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IGF-051906pm.txt>, 
Nitin said " I am available for meeting one on 
one with people" and said he'd take comments by 
email etc.  Can only guess, but I expect Nominet 
took advantage of the offer, spoke with Nitin 
then submitted their comment in writing.


>(I may be wrong and he may have said something 
>in the passing, which hardly constitutes an 
>invitation to stakeholders to participate in the 
>process). If we knew we would have availed of 
>this invitation, especially when we had asked 
>for such an invitation in our letter to him a 
>few months earlier. Are you sure he said any 
>such thing in an open consultation? I only 
>remember him saying during the open 
>consultations that EC should not be discussed 
>here (in the consultations).
>
>
>>  About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
>  > Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
>>  cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
>>  during the last IGF consultation?
>
>I think he said that UN SG will be giving a 
>report on enhanced cooperation to the CSTD for 
>the May session, I remember nothing more.


I was trying to remember what was said about a 
report on enhanced cooperation DESA submitted.

Background being that during the CSTD meeting 
last year some govt asked why the secretary 
general had not submitted a report on enhanced 
cooperation to the CSTD process.  All actionable 
items from the Tunis Agenda were expected to 
submit a report.  So following up from that 
CSTD/ECOSOC asked the SG to report in future.  He 
seems to have passed responsibility on to DESA.

During the lunch meeting with Charles Geiger and 
others we asked if there had been any progress on 
enhanced cooperation and if I remember correctly 
we were told DESA had prepared a report but was 
considered inadequate (very inadequate.)  I'm 
guessing that since then there's been a flurry of 
activity with DESA trying and drag something more 
useful together.  Hence asking ISOC and IETF 
being asked to submit a report.  Think if I were 
ISOC I'd ask DESA to define "enhanced 
cooperation", point out a few other corrections 
(see below) then give a URL for the work IETF and 
ISOC does.


>This exercise of collection of 'annual 
>performance reports' seems to be a part of 
>preparing that report in absence of anything 
>else of any significance to mention there. Will 
>be interesting to see what, for instance, ICANN, 
>reports back on its enhanced cooperation (EC) 
>activity? It will be more interesting to see if 
>the SG's report to CSTD accepts the spin on what 
>is EC that comes from ICANN etc reports as 
>actually what they also see EC as.


As we don't know what enhanced cooperation is, 
it's probably hard to respond.  Surely it's the 
job of the person tasked with producing the 
report to define what their questions mean? 
Otherwise ICANN and any other organization would 
be more that justified in simply submitting their 
organizations standard annual report, 
particularly as Mr. Sha's letter to ISOC 
misquotes the Tunis Agenda, saying:

"...relevant organizations shall be requested to 
provide annual pcrformmce  reports on the steps 
they have taken towards 'enhmced cooperation'."

Quote marks and misspellings in Sha's letter.

TA actually says:

"The same relevant organizations shall be 
requested to provide annual performance reports."

Given this, I think we should be careful when 
reading the paragraph explaining Nitin's 2006 
consultations.

Looks like a bit of panic to me...

Adam


>Parminder
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 8:22 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>>
>>  The only consultation process I remember was
>>  Nitin making an open invitation for anyone to
>>  contact him. Not sure my memory's right, but I
>>  think it was at the end of one of the open
>>  consultations last year (May, September?).  He
>>  said people should feel free to contact him, and
>>  he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few
>>  days and his door was open to anyone.
>>
>>  No idea who he might have spoken to.
>>
>>  About Mr. Sha's reports...  Anyone remember what
>>  Charles Geiger said about the enhanced
>>  cooperation report when we met him in Geneva
>>  during the last IGF consultation?
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>  >  >©¯The Under-Secretary General of the United
>>  >Nations,
>>  ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
>>  >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
>>  >President and CEO·
>>  >
>>  >Also note that the quoted letter mentions
>>  >
>>  >©¯In 2006, the Secretary-General's Special,
>>  >Adviser for Internet Governance, Mr. Nitin
>>  >Desai, consulted with representatives of all
>>  >stakeholder groups - government, the private
>>  >sector, and civil society, as well as technical
>>  >and academic communities - in order to find a
>>  >common ground wit11 reference to this process-
>>  >In September 2006, Mr. Desai submitted a report
>>  >with the results of these consultations. In
>>  >August 2007,I was entrusted by the
>>  >Secretary-General to contii~ueth e consultation
>>  >process, especially on the next: steps to be
>>  >taken.©—
>>  >
>>  >(end)
>>  >
>>  >I do not know of any discussion that Nitin had
>>  >with representatives of civil society. Does
>  > >anyone have information about it? And if he did
>>  >do it with representatives of other stakeholder
>>  >groups they have been very tight lipped about
>>  >it. In fact we wrote a letter to Nitin early
>>  >last year asking for information on the EC
>>  >process and requesting that we, and CS, be
>>  >included in the deliberations. The letter was
>>  >never acknowledged.
>>  >
>>  >I think we should write once again in protest
>>  >against such exclusion of civil society and IGC
>>  >from this process. At the very least we should
>>  >ask them which representatives of civil society
>>  >they conferred with, and what exactly do they
>>  >mean when they say ‘civil society©–. Such
>>  >ignoring of IGC, and with what we understand as
>>  >civil society, by a process that claims
>>  >multistakeholderism is something we need to
>>  >strongly protest against·
>>  >
>>  >Meanwhile, we should propose a workshop on EC,
>>  >and during the discussions on workshop proposals
>>  >CS MAG members should defend CS©–s right to
>>  >deliberate this important IG issue·
>>  >
>>  >Parminder
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:10 PM
>>  >To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'
>>  >Subject: enhanced cooperation
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Personally, I would like to propose a workshop
>>  >on the issue of enhanced cooperation (against
>>  >whatever odds of it being accepted). Perhaps we
>>  >can develop the ' Enhanced Cooperation - What
>>  >Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is the
>>  >Status of It' theme we proposed for Feb
>>  >consultations into a workshop proposal.
>>  >
>>  >Among the present list of 4 workshop proposals
>>  > the second one on CIRs is still unformed.
>>  >Should the issue of political oversight of CIRs
>>  >contained in the EC proposition be proposed in
>>  >this CIR slot? In that case we can develop the
>>  >above theme proposal.
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >BTW, I am not sure if any of you have seen a
>>  >very significant posting on EC at
>>  ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request>http://wi
>>  ki.tools.isoc.org/Policy_Activities/UN_report_request
>>  >.
>>  >
>>  >To quote
>>  >©¯The Under-Secretary General of the United
>>  >Nations,
>>  ><http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/#bioSection>Sha
>  > >Zukang, has written to Internet Society
>>  >President and CEO Lynn St. Amour, inviting ISOC
>>  >to provide an annual performance report on the
>  > >steps the organization has taken toward
>>  >"enhanced cooperation" on public policy issues
>>  >pertaining to the Internet.  This request comes
>>  >in the context of the outcomes of the 2005 World
>>  >Summit on the Information Society.  (A copy of
>>  >that letter is posted
>>  ><http://wiki.tools.isoc.org/@api/deki/files/73/=UNrequest20080312.pdf>her
>>  e.)©—
>>  >
>>  >I read it as an effort to parcel the EC concept
>>  >exclusively as a ‘bottom up©– autonomous set of
>>  >activities among existing organization, which to
>>  >me more or less means nothing (sorry for being a
>>  >bit skeptic) and which serves to push away the
>>  >issue of real political oversight of the these
>>  >existing organizations. And I understand that
>>  >this is an important issue about which we are
>>  >concerned. Recent emails by Wolfgang and Michael
>>  >Leibrandt also discuss this issue.
>>  >
>>  >No one else will bell the cat on EC. CS should
>>  >take the lead in bringing this issue in the open
>>  >and base its resolution (or a movement towards
>>  >some kind of resolution in the future) on open
>>  >discussion rather than behind-the-scene
>>  >half-hearted efforts.
>>  >
>>  >Parminder
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >  > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >  > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 3:07 PM
>>  >  > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >  > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>>  >  > topics.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Parminder
>>  >  >
>>  >  > However the discussion whether this is the set of workshops we will
>>  >  > sponsor
>>  >  > or if there will be a change I the list remains open, and may be
>>  >  > discussed.
>>  >  > The 4 themes that IGC had proposed for IGF Hyderabad during the Feb
>  > >  > consultations are as follows.
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and
>>  What Is
>>  >  > the Status of It
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the
>>  Internet
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>>  >  >
>>  >  > 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Those who had proposed these themes may also want to build a mass
>>  around
>>  >  > them to develop them into workshop proposals.
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Parminder
>>  >  >
>>  >  > > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
>>  >  > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 2:49 PM
>>  >  > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
>>  >  > > Subject: RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > .  I
>>  >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
>>  each of
>>  >  > > the
>>  >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
>>  week
>>  >  > > latest,
>>  >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
>>  lead
>>  >  > > times
>>  >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Yes, that©–s the way to go.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > All members, pl volunteer for sub groups around each of these four
>>  >  > topics.
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > Parminder
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > >
>>  >  > > > -----Original Message-----
>>  >  > > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>>  >  > > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
>>  >  > > > To: Governance
>>  >  > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Hi,
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity
>>  would
>>  >  > > be
>>  >  > > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust
>>  demand
>>  >  > > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community'
>>  if
>>  >  > > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
>>  >  > > > individual
>>  >  > > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the
>>  program.
>>  >  > But
>  > >  > > if
>>  >  > > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize
>  > properly.
>>  >  > > Just
>>  >  > > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
>>  >  > > > consensus
>>  >  > > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not
>>  to
>>  >  > > > mention
>>  >  > > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial"
>>  etc.  I
>>  >  > > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate
>>  each of
>>  >  > > the
>>  >  > > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next
>>  week
>>  >  > > latest,
>>  >  > > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long
>>  lead
>>  >  > > times
>>  >  > > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).
>>  Otherwise
>>  >  > the
>>  >  > > > two
>>  >  > > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going
>>  around
>>  >  > > and
>>  >  > > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do
>>  another
>>  >  > > 11th
>>  >  > > > hour dash to finalize.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Few specific comments:
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt"
>>  <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
>>  >  > > wrote:
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>>  >  > > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential
>>  >  > listeners
>>  >  > > -
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it
>>  makes
>>  >  > > sense
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At
>>  least
>>  >  > many
>>  >  > > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined
>>  in the
>>  >  > > > title as
>>  >  > > > > you suggested.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent
>>  a lot
>  > >  > > of
>>  >  > > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we
>>  approached
>>  >  > > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to
>>  talk
>>  >  > > about
>>  >  > > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate
>>  was
>>  >  > not
>>  >  > > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not
>>  >  > equivalent
>>  >  > > > to
>>  >  > > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop
>>  >  > discussion
>>  >  > > > was
>>  >  > > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be
>>  >  > doing
>>  >  > > > now
>>  >  > > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws
>>  report.  We
>>  >  > > > have
>>  >  > > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to
>>  make
>>  >  > > > clear
>>  >  > > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I
>>  >  > wouldn't
>>  >  > > > go
>>  >  > > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce
>>  time.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
>>  >  > > > >> Governance<?
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not
>>  really
>>  >  > > > explored
>>  >  > > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be
>>  claimed has
>>  >  > > > been
>>  >  > > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie,
>>  but to
>>  >  > > at
>>  >  > > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-
>>  nationalization,
>>  >  > that
>>  >  > > > is,
>>  >  > > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open
>>  up a
>>  >  > > blast
>>  >  > > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether
>>  the
>>  >  > > term
>>  >  > > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find
>>  a
>>  >  > > better
>>  >  > > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal,
>  > contractual,
>>  >  > > > >> technical and private means/instruments"
>>  >  > > > >>
>>  >  > > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
>  > >  > > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
>>  >  > > > > jurisdiction
>>  >  > > > >
>>  >  > > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
>>  >  > > because
>>  >  > > > I
>>  >  > > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal
>>  framework
>>  >  > > yet
>>  >  > > > (and
>>  >  > > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on
>>  gTLD,
>>  >  > for
>>  >  > > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem
>>  is, to
>>  >  > > my
>>  >  > > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more
>>  have de
>>  >  > > > facto
>>  >  > > > > extraterritorial effects.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought
>>  that
>>  >  > the
>>  >  > > > idea
>>  >  > > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
>>  >  > > > jurisdiction
>>  >  > > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
>>  >  > > decisions,
>>  >  > > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business)
>>  but
>>  >  > also
>>  >  > > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to
>>  YouTube,
>>  >  > > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting
>>  impact
>>  >  > of
>>  >  > > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a
>>  "global
>>  >  > > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the
>>  exercise
>>  >  > > of
>>  >  > > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more
>>  appealing;
>>  >  > > > other
>>  >  > > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to
>>  get
>>  >  > > > industry
>>  >  > > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed.
>  > If
>>  >  > we
>>  >  > > > form
>>  >  > > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this
>>  one.
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the
>>  Internet
>>  >  > -
>>  >  > > > >> implications for IG"
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
>>  >  > problem
>>  >  > > > this
>>  >  > > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot
>>  coexist
>>  >  > and
>>  >  > > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit
>>  ones
>>  >  > > (seems
>>  >  > > > a
>>  >  > > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting
>>  partially
>>  >  > > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > Thanks,
>>  >  > > >
>>  >  > > > 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
>>  >  >
>>  >  >
>>  >  > ____________________________________________________________
>>  >  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>  >  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>  >  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >  >
>>  >  > For all list information and functions, see:
>>  >  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>  >
>>  >____________________________________________________________
>>  >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >
>>  >For all list information and functions, see:
>  > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGC letter to 
>Nitin Desai 1.pdf (PDF /«IC») (00565F08)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 04:23:18 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240804c42760fc5606@[192.168.1.2]>

>It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are actively pursued
>to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
>multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered even when
>it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the letter
>went after the 2006 process).


See my other email.  Likely Nominet took up the 
offer to meet with Nitin and then responded 
further in writing.  ICC's contribution was 
different, a response to the first open 
consultation trying to identify the scope of 
issues the IGF should address -- ICC wanted 
enhanced cooperation separate. Sent before 
Nitin's "come see me" offer.  In light of para 71 
it's no big surprise ISOC (IETF) would be asked 
for an annual report.


>I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
>multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil
>society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list.
>
>And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups. Apparently none
>were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
>institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-stakeholderism. Or even
>by including ISOC, and its IETF group.


Nitin asked any interested person to contact him 
and or see him, I guess Nominet took up the offer.

Para 71, regarding enhanced cooperation asks all 
relevant organizations to provide annual 
performance report.  So really no surprise ICANN 
ISOC (IETF) would be asked (I am actually not 
sure why ISOC, but that perhaps depends on what 
enhanced cooperation is, of course something we 
don't know.)

A letter to Mr Sha asking which CS organizations 
have been consulted is a good idea.  And for a 
copy of Nitin's 2006 report.  Mr Sha did meet 
with some individuals (me included) in Rio, but 
not as consultation about enhanced cooperation. 
We could also ask him to define what he means by 
enhanced cooperation. Keep any questions as 
simple and direct as possible.

Adam



>Parminder
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>>  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>>
>>
>>  Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>
>>  > The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open
>>  > invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,
>>  > but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last
>>  > year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact
>>  > him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and
>>  > his door was open to anyone.
>>  >
>>  > No idea who he might have spoken to.
>>
>>  This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's
>>  report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
>>  This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also
>>  requested.
>>
>>  Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its
>>  contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers
>>  to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current
>>  consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly
>>  requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through
>>  informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http://
>>  www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
>>
>>  Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http://
>  > www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)
>>
>>  During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many
>>  participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai
>>  answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/
>>  IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
>>  ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin
>>  first by a
>>  word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.
>>  And that
>>  is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.
>>  Basically, if
>  > you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of
>  > IGF, in
>>  the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It
>  > was just
>>  said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of
>>  process or
>>  what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in
>>  the case
>>  of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph
>>  specifying
>>  terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of
>>  IGF. So,
>>  essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
>>  consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with
>>  people to
>>  find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
>>  could be
>>  found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what
>>  this
>>  process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to
>>  the
>>  Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that
>>  there isn't
>>  that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something
>>  different, a
>>  different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you
>>  know, there is
>>  a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
>>  Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling
>>  this, there
>>  will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may
>>  lead to
>>  certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we
>>  face there
>>  is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."
>>  Unlike in the
>>  case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably
>>  clear.  There
>>  was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.
>>  So what we
>>  did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in
>>  diplomacy, the
>>  best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You
>>  can't
>>  necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I
>>  do accept
>>  that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we
>>  do, at some
>>  point. "
>>
>>  In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see
>>  what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the
>>  sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he
>>  provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new
>>  UN SG was elected.
>>
>>  Meryem
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Apr 13 04:29:02 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:29:02 +0200
Subject: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <00c401c89cda$30e9ee60$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <C42790EE.10D78%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I would suggest that before anyone marches off and starts doing anything we
reach closure on how many and which ws IGC will propose, hopefully focusing
on recently discussed options in which people have shown interest, a bounded
set, rather adding into the pot every idea ever floated and floundering
around for a week trying to narrow things down again.  Either way, it would
be preferable to have some clear consensus on the choices first.  I suggest
"just" three, in the hope that we could actually pull this off: mandate,
jurisdiction, and "internationalization," which needs better framing.

If there's agreement to do one on jurisdiction/extraterritoriality, per Ian
and contra the Bard, we'd need some lawyers.  There are a number of legal
scholars who've done good stuff in this arena, like Joel Reidenberg, Dan
Burk, Joel Trachtman, Jack Goldsmith, Mark Lemley, etc.  Alas, all I just
named are from the US and none have been involved in IGF, but there must be
folks elsewhere with similar skill sets who we might be able to persuade to
come.  Frankly, this issue area does require at least some specialized
expertise to tackle properly, and if we can't get enough of the right people
it might not be viable to do this time.

Another option would be to focus on some of the efforts to actually work out
international governance arrangements on jurisdictional issues, choice of
law, etc---UNCITRAL, the Hague Conference, etc.  Then there'd be more people
to choose from, e.g. Jamie Love, who I presume will be in Hyderabad.   I
also would imagine that ICC could help us find an industry person who works
on this nexus...

Bill


On 4/12/08 10:16 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Before we do huddle on this, if anyone on the larger group has suggestions
> for speakers we could invite pls send them either to me or to the list.
> 
> I did approach Justice Kirby of the Australian High Court who has spoken
> prominently on these issues, unfortunately he can't come. A good legal mind
> or two would be good for this one on transboundary data flow, transboundary
> jurisdictional issues etc.
> 
> 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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: 13 April 2008 01:13
>> To: Governance
>> Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/12/08 4:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
>>>> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
>>>> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
>>> 
>>> Meryem, Bret and Ian
>>> 
>>> Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start developing
>> this
>>> proposal. Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of the
>> stuff
>>> from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to
>> help in
>>> developing the proposal?
>> 
>> As I said earlier today,
>> 
>> On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date:
>> 12/04/2008 11:32
>> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date: 12/04/2008
> 11:32
>  
> 

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 13 04:41:02 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:11:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <BFB820CD-91E6-46FF-A2BC-FA35DFD65E10@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20080413084115.1D31AE052C@smtp3.electricembers.net>

 

> Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as

> far as we know from publicly available information), it might have

> been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide

> an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to

> ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a

> report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).

> i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS

> organization.

> 

> I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be

> consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't

> have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".

 

You are right Meryem. The exercise that Nitin carried out in 2006 was
different. It was in pursuance of the directive to the UN SG by Tunis Agenda
para 71 (first part) to start a process towards enhanced cooperation by the
end of the first quarter of 2006. The present process being directed by Sha
is about the last part of para 71 whereby 'relevant organizations' should
start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' and provide annual performance
reports.

 

Para 71 read as follows

 

71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the
first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective
roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process,
and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence
a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders,
proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same
relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance
reports. (ends)

 

It is obvious that these two processes are supposed to have very different
substance. (Among other things, note that the phrase ‘(will be) responsive
to innovation’ is used twice.) The UN SG initiated process is the address
the real issue of ‘development of globally-applicable principles on public
policy issues’ while the process to be done by relevant organizations and
their performance reports is about ‘creating an environment that facilitates
this development of public policy principles’. 

 

Para 70 reads as

 

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

 

Obviously the principal need and act of developing public policy principles
is at a very different level from merely creating an environment to
facilitate such development. To collapse the two into one process of
enhanced cooperation (EC) that is basically only about some activities (only
some repackaging of what they may in any case be doing) of the ‘relevant
organization’ and ignoring the principal need recognized by Tunis agenda for
a new way to look at developing globally applicable principles on public
policy is indeed a travesty. (Such a need is identified and developed from
para 58 onwards). But this is exactly what is being tried to be done by many
– the ICANN plus group and the business sector. Now if the UN system
succumbs to validating this version of enhanced cooperation as THE enhanced
cooperation process that was meant by the Tunis agenda, it is probably time
we tried to do something about it. 

 

This also shows the fault-lines between a more policy oriented civil society
and the group which likes to call itself the technical community, and if
often defended as a part of civil society. On many important IG issues their
views are very different, which is one of the reasons we have often tried to
make some distinctions between these two groups.

 

This one version of enhanced cooperation as being efforts of cooperating
with one another is being sold with some kind of focused effort at this
moment. The obvious objective is to deny the role of ‘public policy’ in this
important area of IG, which is important for all people of this world. Such
denial of role of public policy in our society’s affairs in quite in keeping
with the neo-liberal thrust that we encounter around in many small and big
ways, and which is often recognized as very detrimental to the interests of
disadvantaged groups and people
But lets not go any further down that route
for the present


 

There is a enhanced cooperation task force (see www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/enhanced-cooperation/index.html>
enhanced-cooperation/index.html ), and the documents/ responses of Nominet,
ICC etc are relatively clear about what they mean by ‘enhanced cooperation’
- basically by a strong implicit or explicit implication of what they DO NOT
think is enhanced cooperation. Ironically, this latter thing – what they do
not think is enhanced cooperation – is exactly what is the raison de’tre and
meaning of enhanced cooperation as per Tunis agenda, which is painstakingly
developed from para 58 onwards in the document. Please read these parts of
TA which speak about things like ‘cross-cutting international public policy
issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the
current mechanisms’ (para 60), and (immediately afterward), ‘We are
convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a
transparent, democratic, and multilateral process’ (para 61), and many other
such references
 

 

On the other hand what the (so-called) technical community and the business
sector want the concept of enhanced cooperation to remain confined to can be
seen from a quote from a document of ICC (quoted in Meryem’s email) at
http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/pages/CCBI_ICC_enh
anced_cooperation_preliminary_input_31March06.pdf 

 

* We believe that ‘enhanced cooperation’ refers to greater cooperation

among existing organizations, not the creation of new entities.

 

* Enhanced cooperation amongst the relevant organizations that address

Internet related issues should be guided by the objective of information

sharing, creating more awareness and where appropriate, coherence in

work programmes and collaboration.

 

Nothing to do with policy development, clearly. 

 

It is only in Internet governance, where ‘process’ routinely over-runs and
obliterates ‘substance’ (as in multi-stakeholder-ism) that a group of
stakeholders can be fast moving towards closer and closer cooperation on an
issue on the very basic objective and meaning of which they have
dramatically opposing views. 

 

The issue most relevant here is of where does civil society and IGC stand on
this. Are we willing to allow this to happen in front of our eyes and offer
no engagement, which of course (as always in political implications) itself
is an active act of collusion. Or do we have some views on it, and
propulsion to engage.

 

If we have some views, and want to engage on this issue, I propose we hold a
workshop on enhanced cooperation. We will want to draw out the opinions of
different actors on the issue, and hold them accountable on many things they
can be called upon to account for in the very muddy state-of-affairs
described above.

 

Meanwhile we should also do what Meryem suggests below. Comments on this
line of action are solicited.

 

> What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to

> the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC

> (as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and

> asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced

> cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to

> publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of

> transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy

> of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS

> constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially

> proposed.

 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 11:27 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

> 

> Parminder, all,

> 

> Here's my understanding of the situation and of how we should proceed

> as IGC:

> 

> What is important is the information contained in your first mail in

> this thread, i.e. that the UN under-SG has found, in March 2008, that

> something should be reported on 'enhanced cooperation', probably in

> view of the next "cluster of WSIS-related events" (13-30 May in

> Geneva: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?

> year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0).

> 

> Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as

> far as we know from publicly available information), it might have

> been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide

> an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to

> ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a

> report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).

> i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS

> organization.

> 

> I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be

> consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't

> have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".

> 

> Worth noticing: the letter is sent by the UN under-SG, who, according

> to the letter, "In August 2007 was entrusted by the Secretary-General

> to continue the consultation process, especially on the next: steps

> to be taken.". Not Desai anymore, but rather the UN under-SG. "Mr.

> Mr. Sha Zukang became the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for

> Economic and Social Affairs on 1 July, 2007" (http://www.un.org/esa/

> desa/ousg/#bioSection).

> 

> One might suspect that, in line with his comments during May 2007 IGF

> open consultations (see my previous mail), Desai made clear in his

> 2006 report to the UN SG that nothing could be expected on the

> 'enhanced cooperation' front, in the current state of affairs.

> Quoting him again: "For six months, I personally met with people to

> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which

> could be found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as

> to what this process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the

> report of that to the

> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that

> there isn't that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try

> something different, a different approach.  So let us see."

> Apparently, we now start seeing.

> 

> What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to

> the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC

> (as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and

> asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced

> cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to

> publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of

> transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy

> of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS

> constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially

> proposed.

> 

> Best,

> Meryem

> 

> Le 12 avr. 08 à 18:52, Parminder a écrit :

> 

> >

> >

> > It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are

> > actively pursued

> > to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as

> > multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered

> > even when

> > it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the

> > letter

> > went after the 2006 process).

> >

> > I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as

> > multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil

> > society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list.

> >

> > And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups.

> > Apparently none

> > were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG

> > institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-

> > stakeholderism. Or even

> > by including ISOC, and its IETF group.

> >

> > Parminder

> >

> >> -----Original Message-----

> >> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]

> >> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM

> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

> >>

> >>

> >> Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :

> >>

> >>> The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open

> >>> invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,

> >>> but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last

> >>> year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact

> >>> him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and

> >>> his door was open to anyone.

> >>>

> >>> No idea who he might have spoken to.

> >>

> >> This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's

> >> report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.

> >> This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also

> >> requested.

> >>

> >> Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its

> >> contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers

> >> to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current

> >> consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly

> >> requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through

> >> informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http://

> >> www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf

> >>

> >> Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http://

> >> www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)

> >>

> >> During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many

> >> participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai

> >> answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/

> >> IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):

> >> ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin

> >> first by a

> >> word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.

> >> And that

> >> is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.

> >> Basically, if

> >> you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of

> >> IGF, in

> >> the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It

> >> was just

> >> said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of

> >> process or

> >> what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in

> >> the case

> >> of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph

> >> specifying

> >> terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of

> >> IGF. So,

> >> essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of

> >> consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with

> >> people to

> >> find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which

> >> could be

> >> found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what

> >> this

> >> process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to

> >> the

> >> Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that

> >> there isn't

> >> that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something

> >> different, a

> >> different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you

> >> know, there is

> >> a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the

> >> Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling

> >> this, there

> >> will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may

> >> lead to

> >> certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we

> >> face there

> >> is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."

> >> Unlike in the

> >> case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably

> >> clear.  There

> >> was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.

> >> So what we

> >> did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in

> >> diplomacy, the

> >> best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You

> >> can't

> >> necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I

> >> do accept

> >> that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we

> >> do, at some

> >> point. "

> >>

> >> In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see

> >> what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the

> >> sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he

> >> provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new

> >> UN SG was elected.

> >>

> >> Meryem

> >>

> >> ____________________________________________________________

> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >>

> >> For all list information and functions, see:

> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> >

> >

> > ____________________________________________________________

> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:

> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> >

> > For all list information and functions, see:

> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/99627dcc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Apr 13 05:00:52 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:00:52 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
References: <20080412165250.566326884E@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <p06240804c42760fc5606@[192.168.1.2]>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425BFC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Adam
 
very good proposal. Here are two comments:
 
1. In principle it is good that Sha contacts not only governments but also non-governmental players like ISOC, ICC etc. It counters the interpretation EU Commssioner Reding gave in Athens, that EC is mainly an intergovernmental process in the "center" with concentric circles around it, including the IGF. This was certainly a wrong approach (which was not repeated in Rio), but some governments have this interpretation. We discussed this in Meissen in July 2007 during the EC symposium (after the summer school) and we concluded that regardless of the "silence" EC is already developing: Not top down but bottom up in form of enhanced communication, enhanced coordination and enhanced cooperation (EC³) among involved and concerned governmental and non-governmental parties (like ICANN-UNESCO in multiligualism). However we further concluded that the "intergovernmental component" of EC is still on a low level. With other words, we should see the intergovernmental component of EC embedded in a broader multistakeholder process of EC³. Nitin always argued that "he facilitates" the process but does not "steer it", The stakeholders have to do their own homework. If they want to move forward, okay. If they are unable to agree, it needs more time. So it is up to the governments to find a way how to contribute to EC³ and it is also the task of the CS/PS to make their contributions. 
 
2. A letter to Sha asking for more involvement of the IGC would make sense, it is really needed. It was Sha who asked in Rio for a special consultation with CS (I also was there) and - surprise, surprise - he changed his speech and introduced at least one point from the discussion with us: Financial support for CS people from developing countries to enable them to participate in the process. But he was also open to all other points we raised in the debate about the various dimensions of the inclusion of CS in policy development and decision making around the Internet as part of the further development of the principle of multistakeholderism. He himself was very clear in labeling the IGF as - from an UN perspective - experiment in how this new principle can work on the ground. He also said that in his opinion IG could become the next big issue (after climate change) for the UN. I discussed the various ideas further with him in a more private conversation after his press conference whan I thanked him for the inclusion of this "money point" in his speech (which was not in the written version he distributed already before he took the floor in the opening of the IGF). With other words, the IGC should write the letter, refer to the CS consultation he had in Rio offer him to be seen as a/the CS partner in further discussion around EC. And as Adam has proposed: Make in simple and clear. No big theories, just simple facts and clear points. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Gesendet: So 13.04.2008 10:23
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation



>It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are actively pursued
>to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
>multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered even when
>it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the letter
>went after the 2006 process).


See my other email.  Likely Nominet took up the
offer to meet with Nitin and then responded
further in writing.  ICC's contribution was
different, a response to the first open
consultation trying to identify the scope of
issues the IGF should address -- ICC wanted
enhanced cooperation separate. Sent before
Nitin's "come see me" offer.  In light of para 71
it's no big surprise ISOC (IETF) would be asked
for an annual report.


>I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
>multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil
>society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list.
>
>And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups. Apparently none
>were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
>institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-stakeholderism. Or even
>by including ISOC, and its IETF group.


Nitin asked any interested person to contact him
and or see him, I guess Nominet took up the offer.

Para 71, regarding enhanced cooperation asks all
relevant organizations to provide annual
performance report.  So really no surprise ICANN
ISOC (IETF) would be asked (I am actually not
sure why ISOC, but that perhaps depends on what
enhanced cooperation is, of course something we
don't know.)

A letter to Mr Sha asking which CS organizations
have been consulted is a good idea.  And for a
copy of Nitin's 2006 report.  Mr Sha did meet
with some individuals (me included) in Rio, but
not as consultation about enhanced cooperation.
We could also ask him to define what he means by
enhanced cooperation. Keep any questions as
simple and direct as possible.

Adam



>Parminder
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>>  Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
>>
>>
>>  Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :
>>
>>  > The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open
>>  > invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,
>>  > but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last
>>  > year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact
>>  > him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and
>>  > his door was open to anyone.
>>  >
>>  > No idea who he might have spoken to.
>>
>>  This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's
>>  report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
>>  This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also
>>  requested.
>>
>>  Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its
>>  contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers
>>  to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current
>>  consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly
>>  requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through
>>  informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http:// <http:///> 
>>  www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf
>>
>>  Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http:// <http:///> 
>  > www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)
>>
>>  During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many
>>  participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai
>>  answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/
>>  IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
>>  ">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin
>>  first by a
>>  word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.
>>  And that
>>  is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.
>>  Basically, if
>  > you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of
>  > IGF, in
>>  the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It
>  > was just
>>  said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of
>>  process or
>>  what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in
>>  the case
>>  of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph
>>  specifying
>>  terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of
>>  IGF. So,
>>  essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
>>  consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with
>>  people to
>>  find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which
>>  could be
>>  found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what
>>  this
>>  process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to
>>  the
>>  Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that
>>  there isn't
>>  that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something
>>  different, a
>>  different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you
>>  know, there is
>>  a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
>>  Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling
>>  this, there
>>  will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may
>>  lead to
>>  certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we
>>  face there
>>  is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."
>>  Unlike in the
>>  case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably
>>  clear.  There
>>  was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.
>>  So what we
>>  did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in
>>  diplomacy, the
>>  best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You
>>  can't
>>  necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I
>>  do accept
>>  that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we
>>  do, at some
>>  point. "
>>
>>  In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see
>>  what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the
>>  sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he
>>  provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new
>>  UN SG was elected.
>>
>>  Meryem
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>  For all list information and functions, see:
>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 13 05:21:51 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:51:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C426395D.10D18%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080413092225.C6382E0514@smtp3.electricembers.net>

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -

> >> implications for IG"

> 

> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem

> this

> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and

> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems

> a

> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> walled off by IPR rules or what?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> Bill

> 

 

Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for
clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael
Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.

 

“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax
on those least able to pay?)”

 

“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with
the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”

 

“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
flow from this.”

 

(ends)

 

Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of
activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet
policy frameworks. 

 

Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including
governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG
arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the
present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within
civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does
show the relevance and importance of the subject


 

So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is
now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an
infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would
agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say
‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial
and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for
all/ most sectors of social activity.) 

 

I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG
related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
workshop.

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]

> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM

> To: Governance

> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

> 

> Hi,

> 

> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be

> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand

> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if

> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by

> individual

> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if

> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.

> 

> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just

> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of

> consensus

> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to

> mention

> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I

> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the

> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,

> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times

> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the

> two

> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and

> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th

> hour dash to finalize.

> 

> Few specific comments:

> 

> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:

> 

> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :

> >

> >>

> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"

> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -

> to

> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense

> to

> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many

> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the

> title as

> > you suggested.

> 

> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of

> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached

> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about

> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not

> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent

> to

> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion

> was

> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing

> now

> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We

> have

> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make

> clear

> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't

> go

> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.

> 

> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"

> >>

> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet

> >> Governance<?

> >

> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.

> >

> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.

> 

> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really

> explored

> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has

> been

> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at

> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that

> is,

> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast

> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term

> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better

> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?

> 

> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,

> >> technical and private means/instruments"

> >>

> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more

> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?

> >

> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about

> > jurisdiction

> >

> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because

> I

> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet

> (and

> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for

> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my

> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de

> facto

> > extraterritorial effects.

> 

> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the

> idea

> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of

> jurisdiction

> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,

> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also

> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,

> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of

> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global

> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of

> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;

> other

> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get

> industry

> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we

> form

> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.

> 

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -

> >> implications for IG"

> 

> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem

> this

> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and

> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems

> a

> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially

> walled off by IPR rules or what?

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/783b7dda/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Apr 13 06:32:03 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:32:03 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <4801d0d2.14da600a.27c7.44c4SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <C427ADC3.10D83%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you¹re replying to me directly:

I don¹t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore¹s
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you¹re offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn¹t define ³how the net was seen²  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we¹ve been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it¹s purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches,² nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let¹s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the ³internationalization² ws and on
and on.  That said, if there¹s lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I¹ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam¹s self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>>>> > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
>>>> > >> implications for IG"
>> > 
>> > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
>> > this
>> > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
>> > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
>> > a
>> > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
>> > walled off by IPR rules or what?
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > 
>> > Bill
>> > 
>  
> Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for clarification
> on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael Gurstein of 17th
> May, which I  quote.
>  
> ³However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
> responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
> broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
> taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
> particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax on
> those least able to pay?)²
>  
> ³I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
> Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
> Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
> privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
> "governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with the
> various "governance" implications that would flow from this.²
>  
> ³Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
> (understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
> supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
> governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
> flow from this.²
>  
> (ends)
>  
> Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
> from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
> framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
> direction ­ of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
> but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of activity
> or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet policy
> frameworks. 
>  
> Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
> documents on US¹s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
> governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an view
> of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
> infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities ­ including
> governance, and political activity ­ but the nature and premises of its
> governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
> society¹s and Œprogressive groups¹ opposition to the present regime of IG
>  arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
> transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
> undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the present
> IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the manner these
> organizations function is at the base of differences within civil society ­
> including within IGC ­ on the attitude to these IG institutions. Ok, I may be
> digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does show the relevance and
> importance of the subjectŠ
>  
> So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
> Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is now
> the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity, and
> (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an infrastructure
> of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would agree that the two
> kinds of areas of activity require different governance and policy approaches.
> (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say Œanyone will agree¹,
> because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial and economic logics, and
> by implication governance systems, are adequate for all/ most sectors of
> social activity.)
>  
> I think this question ­ or set of questions ­ is at the base of much IG
> related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
> it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
> workshop.
>  
> Parminder 
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
>> > To: Governance
>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>> > 
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
>> > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
>> > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
>> > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
>> > individual
>> > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
>> > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
>> > 
>> > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
>> > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
>> > consensus
>> > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
>> > mention
>> > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
>> > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
>> > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
>> > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
>> > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
>> > two
>> > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
>> > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
>> > hour dash to finalize.
>> > 
>> > Few specific comments:
>> > 
>> > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
>> > 
>>> > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
>>> > >
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
>>> > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
>> > to
>>> > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
>> > to
>>> > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
>>> > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
>> > title as
>>> > > you suggested.
>> > 
>> > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
>> > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
>> > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
>> > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
>> > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
>> > to
>> > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
>> > was
>> > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
>> > now
>> > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
>> > have
>> > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
>> > clear
>> > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
>> > go
>> > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
>> > 
>>>> > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
>>>> > >> Governance<?
>>> > >
>>> > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
>>> > >
>>> > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
>> > 
>> > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
>> > explored
>> > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
>> > been
>> > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
>> > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
>> > is,
>> > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
>> > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
>> > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
>> > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
>> > 
>>>> > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
>>>> > >> technical and private means/instruments"
>>>> > >>
>>>> > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
>>>> > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
>>> > >
>>> > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
>>> > > jurisdiction
>>> > >
>>> > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
>> > I
>>> > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
>> > (and
>>> > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
>>> > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
>>> > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
>> > facto
>>> > > extraterritorial effects.
>> > 
>> > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
>> > idea
>> > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
>> > jurisdiction
>> > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
>> > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
>> > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
>> > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
>> > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
>> > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
>> > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
>> > other
>> > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
>> > industry
>> > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
>> > form
>> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
>> > 
>>>> > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
>>>> > >> implications for IG"
>> > 
>> > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
>> > this
>> > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
>> > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
>> > a
>> > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
>> > walled off by IPR rules or what?
>> > 
>> > Thanks,
>> > 
>> > 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
> 


***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/6465d3be/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Apr 13 06:39:53 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:39:53 +0200
Subject: Workshop on IG and Jurisdictions - Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance]
 Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <00c401c89cda$30e9ee60$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <00c401c89cda$30e9ee60$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <D6D91984-E76C-4DB8-BF48-9C9E75B46EA6@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

I changed the subject and I'm still waiting for Bret convening a  
small working group to discuss more in details the workshop.
In the mean time, regarding Ian's call for suggestions for speakers,  
here are some proposals to start with:

- IGO: The Hague Conference on private international law - on  
jurisdiction for civil and commercial matters:consumer issues,  
copyright, etc. (Convention on the choice of court agreements) - I  
can ask CPTech to help finding the right person [Will probably have  
no other reason to be in Hyderabad]

- IGO: The Council of Europe - on jurisdiction for criminal issues  
and content issues (Convention on cybercrime, Convention on  
transfrontier television) - The under Secretary General should be the  
one. [Will be in Hyderabad]

- IGO: WIPO (but I'm afraid the workshop would turn into IPR issues,  
plus many workshop would address this) [Will certainly be in Hyderabad]

- IGO (sort of): Regional associations of Data Protection authorities  
(EU, APEC, Francophone association - includes African countries).  
[Presence in Hyderabad?]

- UFO:): ICANN (but, as in WIPO case, I'm afraid the workshop would  
turn into DNS issues) [Will be in Hyderabad]

- CS: KEI (CPTech)/TACD: Jamie Love or Manon Ress (consumers and  
copyright issues; most notably on the Hague Convention on the choice  
of court agreements) [Good chances they will be in Hyderabad]

- CS: EDRI: Meryem  Marzouki (human rights, freedoms and rule of law  
issues; most notably on Convention on cybercrime; Convention on  
transfrontier television; French-USA Yahoo case; EU Rome II Treaty on  
law applicable to non-contractual obligations; UN HR Commission in  
follow-up of Durban Summit, etc.   [Will be in Hyderabad]

- CS/Academics: many people have written on this. Mostly law  
professors. [Presence in Hyderabad?]

- BIZ: IFPI (phonographic industry); WAN or similar (newspaper  
associations); Yahoo/AOL/Google-YouTube/etc. (multinational ISPs and  
social networking applications); Registries/registrars [Will be in  
Hyderabad]

- GOV: not sure they're needed (IGOs more important here). But just  
in case, we should prefer countries having experienced problematic  
jurisdiction cases: France, The Netherlands, USA, .. [Will be in  
Hyderabad]

On co-sponsorship, I'm pretty sure KEI (CPTech), EDRI, the Council of  
Europe would accept to co-sponsor, and probably ICC or individual  
businesses would be also interested. France and USA may be asked to  
co-sponsor, too.

If there's agreement on these suggestions for participation/co- 
sponsorship, I would take care of inviting Council of Europe (speaker  
and co-sponsorship), as EDRI is in relation with them. I would also  
contact KEI/CPTech, and can manage WAN or other newspaper association  
through other contacts. Of course, I could ask French government if  
needed.

Best,
Meryem

Le 12 avr. 08 à 22:16, Ian Peter a écrit :

> Before we do huddle on this, if anyone on the larger group has  
> suggestions
> for speakers we could invite pls send them either to me or to the  
> list.
>
> I did approach Justice Kirby of the Australian High Court who has  
> spoken
> prominently on these issues, unfortunately he can't come. A good  
> legal mind
> or two would be good for this one on transboundary data flow,  
> transboundary
> jurisdictional issues etc.
>
> 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: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: 13 April 2008 01:13
>> To: Governance
>> Subject: Re: {Spam?} RE: [governance] Where are we with IGC  
>> workshops?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/08 4:50 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> This started, though not formally, with Bret Fausett and Ian Peter
>>>> volunteering to develop description for workshop in IG and
>>>> jurisdictions. I volunteer too for this one.
>>>
>>> Meryem, Bret and Ian
>>>
>>> Would you all then get into a huddle as an e-group and start  
>>> developing
>> this
>>> proposal. Thanks.
>>>
>>> Anyone else who will like to join in? Willie you collated some of  
>>> the
>> stuff
>>> from the list and were among the initial proposers. Will you like to
>> help in
>>> developing the proposal?
>>
>> As I said earlier today,
>>
>> On 4/12/08 10:03 AM, "William Drake"  
>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date:
>> 12/04/2008 11:32
>>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1375 - Release Date:  
> 12/04/2008
> 11:32
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Apr 13 07:20:34 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:20:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Organizing our work
References: <0F713E4D-E003-4CB2-9054-8AA97FE046F7@lip6.fr>
Message-ID: <79DBEE67-88BF-4463-9B17-72256CCC9207@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

Début du message réexpédié :

> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> To: "Singh, Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>, Governance  
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:32:03 +0200

> There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend  
> much juice on any one of them
[...]

Let's please change the subjects of our messages to ease these many  
ongoing conversations.

[...]

> Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
>
> *The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by  
> today, and we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.

==> Nomcom in charge, will report to IGC

> *Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

==> Parminder in charge of drafting, with comments by IGC

> *Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported  
> and operationally viable set, getting groups organized around  
> these, then drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and  
> cosponsors, vetting through the list, then nailing them down.

==> So, let's go for this: enough general discussion, let's start  
implementation.
- IGC could be main convenor or 2-3 workshops ("IGF past, present and  
future", "CIR/internationalization", "IG and jurisdictions"): working  
groups to prepare them and then get back to IGC for comments/ 
approval. We already have one formed on "IG and jurisdictions".
- IGC could co-sponsor of others ("co-existence of different spaces",  
etc.): these workshops to be prepared by their main convenors, if any.

> *Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

==> Parminder should start discussion on this

> Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Old recipes always help: relevant subject line + some taylorism to  
divide work:)

Best,
Meryem

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Sun Apr 13 09:35:18 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:35:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops - Hints on themes description
Message-ID: <8E5178A4-0774-403F-90B1-BD56BCF82A4F@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

As you already know, GigaNet (The Global Internet Governance Academic  
Network) has already disseminated the call for papers for its 3rd  
annual symposium to be held in Hyderabad on 2 December, the day  
before next IGF.
Among this year symposium 7 topics, there are 2 themes close to IGC  
workshops that we're currently discussing. I'm reproducing hereafter  
these topics as described by the symposium program committee, just in  
case this might help us framing our workshops description.
[Michael and others: I know these are academic, "boring"  
descriptions. I'm just providing some hints here. In case of  
headache: caipirinha for everyone]

Meryem

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Excerpt of 3rd Giganet symposium CFP (http://tinyurl.com/ynsuuf):
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::

4. Year 3 of the UN Internet Governance Forum: Assessing its  
Structure, Process and Impact:
The WSIS created and mandated the IGF to address critical, value- 
adding global Internet governance functions that cannot be entirely  
performed by any existing institution. This includes: highlighting  
emerging issues, assessing the embodiment of WSIS principles, and  
strengthening the participation of stakeholders in Internet  
governance mechanisms. Furthermore, the IGF was defined as  
“multilateral, multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent” body;  
it has been structured through a Secretariat, a multi-stakeholder  
advisory group (MAG), and a special advisory group to the MAG’s  
chair; and for 3 years, it has been operating as an open discursive  
space, prepared through open consultation sessions. Submissions are  
invited to explore whether the IGF has fulfilled its mandate at this  
step, which difficulties can be identified and how they could be  
solved. Has the IGF structure, management and advisory mechanisms  
proven to be adequate and compliant with the WSIS Tunis Agenda  
requirements? What strengths could be reinforced and weaknesses  
overcome?

5. Law and Jurisdictions in Internet Governance:
The Internet must now be considered a major factor when elaborating  
regulatory principles to deal with the circulation of content and  
data and with the protection of the general communications  
infrastructure. This is not an easy task because of its implications  
on the respect for universal human rights, fundamental freedoms and  
the rule of law, where States differ widely on their implementation  
of these international standards, even among coherent regional  
entities. The task becomes even more complex due to conflicts of  
competences among overlapping jurisdictions. We seek papers that  
identify and explore conflicts among national laws and attempts to  
harmonize them. We also seek papers that explore the relevance to the  
global Internet of public and private international law currently in  
force or being considered in ongoing international negotiations.  
Submissions analyzing the role and positions of various players in  
these processes are also encouraged.

:::::::::::::::::::::
End of excerpt
:::::::::::::::::::::



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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr 13 09:57:30 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:57:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080413084115.1D31AE052C@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <BFB820CD-91E6-46FF-A2BC-FA35DFD65E10@ras.eu.org>
	 <20080413084115.1D31AE052C@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804130657n50f8ac1lb50ed85730a4ed76@mail.gmail.com>

Dewd,

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as
>
> > far as we know from publicly available information),

I don't understand how anyone can still persist in this fiction, after
having sent 3 publicly available links in the last few hours regarding
ongoing EC efforts?


it might have
>
> > been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide
>
> > an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to
>
> > ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a
>
> > report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).
>
> > i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS
>
> > organization.
>
> >
>
> > I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be
>
> > consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't
>
> > have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".
>
>
>
> You are right Meryem. The exercise that Nitin carried out in 2006 was
> different. It was in pursuance of the directive to the UN SG by Tunis Agenda
> para 71 (first part) to start a process towards enhanced cooperation by the
> end of the first quarter of 2006. The present process being directed by Sha
> is about the last part of para 71 whereby 'relevant organizations' should
> start a process of 'enhanced cooperation' and provide annual performance
> reports.
>
>
>
> Para 71 read as follows
>
>
>
> 71. The process towards enhanced cooperation, to be started by the UN
> Secretary-General, involving all relevant organizations by the end of the
> first quarter of 2006, will involve all stakeholders in their respective
> roles, will proceed as quickly as possible consistent with legal process,
> and will be responsive to innovation. Relevant organizations should commence
> a process towards enhanced cooperation involving all stakeholders,
> proceeding as quickly as possible and responsive to innovation. The same
> relevant organizations shall be requested to provide annual performance
> reports. (ends)
>
>
>
> It is obvious that these two processes are supposed to have very different
> substance. (Among other things, note that the phrase '(will be) responsive
> to innovation' is used twice.) The UN SG initiated process is the address
> the real issue of 'development of globally-applicable principles on public
> policy issues' while the process to be done by relevant organizations and
> their performance reports is about 'creating an environment that facilitates
> this development of public policy principles'.

There IS an environment already, you just choose NOt to partake in it.

>
>
>
> Para 70 reads as
>
>
>
> 70. Using relevant international organizations, such cooperation should
> include the development of globally-applicable principles on public policy
> issues associated with the coordination and management of critical Internet
> resources. In this regard, we call upon the organizations responsible for
> essential tasks associated with the Internet to contribute to creating an
> environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles.
> (ends)
>
>
>
> Obviously the principal need and act of developing public policy principles
> is at a very different level from merely creating an environment to
> facilitate such development. To collapse the two into one process of
> enhanced cooperation (EC) that is basically only about some activities (only
> some repackaging of what they may in any case be doing) of the 'relevant
> organization' and ignoring the principal need recognized by Tunis agenda for
> a new way to look at developing globally applicable principles on public
> policy is indeed a travesty. (Such a need is identified and developed from
> para 58 onwards). But this is exactly what is being tried to be done by many
> – the ICANN plus group and the business sector.


How so?

Now if the UN system
> succumbs to validating this version of enhanced cooperation as THE enhanced
> cooperation process that was meant by the Tunis agenda, it is probably time
> we tried to do something about it.
>
>
>
> This also shows the fault-lines between a more policy oriented civil society
> and the group which likes to call itself the technical community, and if
> often defended as a part of civil society. On many important IG issues their
> views are very different, which is one of the reasons we have often tried to
> make some distinctions between these two groups.
>

From where I sit, the "view" of "the group which likes to call itself
the technical community" (what would you call them btw?) is to protect
and defend the open, transparent, bottom-up nature of CIR policy
making that has helped to make the Internet the success it has become.
Are you against this?


>
>
> This one version of enhanced cooperation as being efforts of cooperating
> with one another is being sold with some kind of focused effort at this
> moment.

I don't see this (although I wish it were true), can you document this?

> The obvious objective is to deny the role of 'public policy'

now that's just silly.


in this
> important area of IG, which is important for all people of this world. Such
> denial of role of public policy in our society's affairs in quite in keeping
> with the neo-liberal

not this again.

 thrust that we encounter around in many small and big
> ways, and which is often recognized as very detrimental to the interests of
> disadvantaged groups and people…But lets not go any further down that route
> for the present…
>

oh thank god!

>
>
> There is a enhanced cooperation task force (see
> www.ripe.net/ripe/tf/enhanced-cooperation/index.html ),


Yes, I am on it.  This in itself is an example of EC!! This is the
"group which likes to call itself the technical community" reacting
positively to the TA!


 and the documents/
> responses of Nominet, ICC etc are relatively clear about what they mean by
> 'enhanced cooperation' - basically by a strong implicit or explicit
> implication of what they DO NOT think is enhanced cooperation. Ironically,
> this latter thing – what they do not think is enhanced cooperation – is
> exactly what is the raison de'tre and meaning of enhanced cooperation as per
> Tunis agenda, which is painstakingly developed from para 58 onwards in the
> document. Please read these parts of TA which speak about things like
> 'cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and
> are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms' (para 60), and
> (immediately afterward), 'We are convinced that there is a need to initiate,
> and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral
> process' (para 61), and many other such references…
>
>
>
> On the other hand what the (so-called) technical community and the business
> sector want the concept of enhanced cooperation to remain confined to can be
> seen from a quote from a document of ICC (quoted in Meryem's email) at
> http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/ICC/policy/e-business/pages/CCBI_ICC_enhanced_cooperation_preliminary_input_31March06.pdf
>
>
>
> · We believe that 'enhanced cooperation' refers to greater cooperation
>
> among existing organizations, not the creation of new entities.
>
>
>
> · Enhanced cooperation amongst the relevant organizations that address
>
> Internet related issues should be guided by the objective of information
>
> sharing, creating more awareness and where appropriate, coherence in
>
> work programmes and collaboration.
>

and the next 3 paras; in that doc:

Enhanced cooperation should be facilitated across the spectrum of all
relevant organizations including those that are private sector-led,
those that are intergovernmental (IGOs) and those that are
multistakeholder.

· The dynamic nature of the Information Society and the Internet are
such that new or additional groups will emerge that should be allowed
to be part of this enhanced cooperation process. In keeping with the
Tunis Agenda principle of inclusiveness, "All relevant organizations"
should not be interpreted as a snapshot in time.

· The fact that many of the organizations that are addressing
Internetrelated issues and their decision-making processes are already
multistakeholder should be recognized since this can be an important
foundation for enhanced cooperation.


>
>
> Nothing to do with policy development, clearly.

Most of the folk you are calling  "the group which likes to call
itself the technical community" have their own PDP's, so it's very
much about policy development, clearly.


>
>
>
> It is only in Internet governance, where 'process' routinely over-runs and
> obliterates 'substance' (as in multi-stakeholder-ism) that a group of
> stakeholders can be fast moving towards closer and closer cooperation on an
> issue on the very basic objective and meaning of which they have
> dramatically opposing views.
>
>
>
> The issue most relevant here is of where does civil society and IGC stand on
> this. Are we willing to allow this to happen in front of our eyes

I am.  Instead of saying " "the group which likes to call itself the
technical community" (and business) is offering a definition of EC
that you don't like, please enunciate a definition that you do like.
We can't just say "that's not EC", we as IGC have to say "EC is
......".


 and offer
> no engagement, which of course (as always in political implications) itself
> is an active act of collusion. Or do we have some views on it, and
> propulsion to engage.
>
>
>
> If we have some views, and want to engage on this issue, I propose we hold a
> workshop on enhanced cooperation. We will want to draw out the opinions of
> different actors on the issue, and hold them accountable on many things they
> can be called upon to account for in the very muddy state-of-affairs
> described above.

But they accountable to their own communities not to IGC or IGF? It's
an act of hubris to call people to account when they aren't
accountable to us.  An example of this is the ISOC page refereed to
ealrier, where ISOC says "hey members, what are we to do about this
request from the UN".

>
>
>
> Meanwhile we should also do what Meryem suggests below. Comments on this
> line of action are solicited.
>
>
>
>
> > What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to
>
> > the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC
>
> > (as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and
>
> > asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced
>
> > cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to
>
> > publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of
>
> > transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy
>
> > of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS
>
> > constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially
>
> > proposed.


Oh, yes, let's do..here's some suggested text:

Dear Mr. Sha,

Please tell us why we haven't been invited to the EC table, even
though it's not yet built? While many of our members refuse to
acknowledge that it is being built, they still want a seat at
it...now.

We have asked before to be included in a process that we don't
acknowledge.  Even though we are not one of the traditional IG bodies,
we think we know better than they do, and want to make them
accountable to the IGF.

We haven't said what we think EC is, but we can say that those who do
say they know what it is, and are actively doing it, are wrong.

So, please invite us to participate in EC efforts that don't exist, as
we can't stomach the ones that do exist, nor can we tell you what we
think they should be,"

Regards,

IGC




NB: excess bits trimmed

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Sun Apr 13 11:41:39 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:41:39 -0700
Subject: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804130657n50f8ac1lb50ed85730a4ed76@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BFB820CD-91E6-46FF-A2BC-FA35DFD65E10@ras.eu.org> <20080413084115.1D31AE052C@smtp3.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804130657n50f8ac1lb50ed85730a4ed76@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080413154139.GA8024@hserus.net>

McTim [13/04/08 16:57 +0300]:
>? The fact that many of the organizations that are addressing
>Internetrelated issues and their decision-making processes are already
>multistakeholder should be recognized since this can be an important
>foundation for enhanced cooperation.

That's something Parminder doesnt realize. And tries to reinvent a wheel
that's already been turning for over a decade.  Open community, consensus
based policy development processes ..

I fully support what you said 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 gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr 13 13:27:03 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:27:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C427ADC3.10D83%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <01fe01c89d8b$98412400$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Bill and all,
 
I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early history of the Internet in
Developed Countries (I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours for
what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in terms of its ultimate
directions and to a considerable degree it depended on who you talked to or
where you were standing as to which set of priorities seemed uppermost...
But that I think is a side issue.
 
The question that I initially presented was whether or not from a public
policy perspective the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a fundamental
and necessary service i.e. as a counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the
opportunity for democratic participation, and so on.  This came from a
reference to statements by Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such
a service and that this should be one of the broader presuppostions (in
Sweden) underlying decision making around other areas of public policy and
programmes.
 
In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the need
to state that there is a "Right to the Internet" and not simply "Rights
concerning the Internet" .  If it could be argued/established/promulgated
that there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood in a very broad sense)
this would have quite a significant effect in various countries including my
own (and your own as well I think) where for example, the government has
basically ceded to the private sector a determination of whether (based on
the principles "of the market") or not a specific individual, community or
region should have a reasonable (fair and equitable) means to achieve access
to the Internet.
 
(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, this may be THE fundamental
CS issue in the context of Internet Governance... As I've indicated in this
space on a number of occasions to my mind and from where I sit with respect
to the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other issues are for most ICT4D
users on the ground either derivative of this fundamental question or simply
of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...
 
MG 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you’re replying to me directly:

I don’t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore’s
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you’re offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we’ve been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it’s purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: “Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches,” nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization” ws and on
and on.  That said, if there’s lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
 
Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for
clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael
Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.
 
“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax
on those least able to pay?)”
 
“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with
the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”
 
“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
flow from this.”
 
(ends)
 
Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of
activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet
policy frameworks. 
 
Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including
governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG
arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the
present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within
civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does
show the relevance and importance of the subject

 
So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is
now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an
infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would
agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say
‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial
and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for
all/ most sectors of social activity.) 
 
I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG
related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
workshop.
 
Parminder 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> individual
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> consensus
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> mention
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> two
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> hour dash to finalize.
> 
> Few specific comments:
> 
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> to
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> to
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> title as
> > you suggested.
> 
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> to
> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> was
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> now
> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> have
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> clear
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> go
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> 
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >> Governance<?
> >
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> 
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> explored
> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> been
> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> is,
> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> 
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > jurisdiction
> >
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> I
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> (and
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> facto
> > extraterritorial effects.
> 
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> idea
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> jurisdiction
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> other
> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> industry
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> form
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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





***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/e6110d9a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Apr 13 13:34:18 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:34:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] [DEADLINE] Call for Nominations - Internet Governance
 Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
Message-ID: <AA85F798-6049-4639-8E41-6AC43CFB4175@privaterra.info>

Dear IGC  colleagues:

I'd like to remind all of you that the deadline is TODAY to be  
considered by the  Internet Governance Caucus nominating committee as  
a candidate to the IGF multi-stakeholder advisory committee.

As chair of the IGC nominating committee, I would like to encourage  
those who are active on this list to apply on or before end of day  
today (April 13th).  A good pool of candidates, one that is  
regionally, gender and linguistically balanced - in my view would be  
of great help for the nom-com.

I encourage participants on this list  to apply !

Details on the call that was issued on April 7th can be found below.

regards

Robert Guerra
IGF 08 Nomcom Chair

-----

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-04/msg00089.html

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2008 Nominating Committee is  
issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus  
(IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group  
(MAG).


-----

DEADLINE for submissions is:  April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time
Where to send nominations - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org

------


Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – for choosing  
Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi- 
Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).


The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they  
should have a civil society identity, and broadly be in alignment with  
positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the caucus at  
different times.


    1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent  
to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for her  
candidature.


    2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention  
with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person  
in the IG and information society arena.


    3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated  
person will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the MAG.


    4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about  
how they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in  
advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC’s positions.  
Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS  
constituencies, may also be mentioned.


Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the  
MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies,  
including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies  
and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as  
well as present/ push their positions in the MAG.


Anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. Self nominations  
are invited


At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of  
the following:


1. Name

2. Name of nominator (or self)

3. Nationality

4. Country of Residence

5. Gender

6. Short Bio relevant to IG

7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a  
good candidate for the MAG



Send nominations to the following email address - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org


IMPORTANT DATES

----------------------------

Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens-  April 6th, 2008

Nomination close -  April 13th, 2008

Nomcom confers between 13th and 16th, 2008

Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April 17th, 2008____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From rguerra at privaterra.org  Sun Apr 13 15:44:35 2008
From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:44:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] [DEADLINE] Call for Nominations - Internet Governance
 Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG)
Message-ID: <B8241F8F-CC6E-4F3D-A217-6A0809E4A535@privaterra.org>

As the nomcom chair - let ask two quick questions. 1. did you check  
with Qusai that he's interested in being re-appointed to the position,  
and if so 2. nomination  need to be sent to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org 
  - as it's the nomcom committee's email address.

regards

Robert
---

Greetings, everyone!

This is to nominate Qusai AlShatti - Kuwait, Deputy Chairman of Kuwait  
Information Technology Society (KITS) for the Internet Governance  
Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).

Qusai AlShatti represented Kuwait at the WSIS process from 2002 until  
2005 as part of Civil Society. He has been a consultant to several  
stakeholders in the Arab World on the issue of Internet Governance.  
Qusai AlShatti was also involved in organizing the management of the  
Kuwait cc:TLD and establishing regulatory procedures.

In the year 2006, Qusai was a member of a research group that I  
supervised/coordinated within the Internet Governance Capacity  
Building Program implemented by DiploFoundation. The research was on  
"Multilingualism - the communication bridge". Qusai played a key role  
in this research due to his profound understanding of the IDNs/DNS  
issues that were highly relevant for the purpose of the research and  
Case Studies conducted by methe research team.
He is committed and meets the deadlines, with a good knowledge and  
understanding of the IG issues and processes, with great passion for  
the work he has been doing so far in the IG sphere.

With consideration,
Veronica



Veronica Cretu
President, "CMB" Training Center
Chisinau, Moldova - www.cmb.md
ICANN ALAC member (EURALO)
DiploFoundation, Internet Governance Capacity Building
Program Tutor/Supervisor for Europe (2005-2007)



R. Guerra
Phone: +1 202-905-2081
Email: guerra at privaterra.org

CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER

This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity  
to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged  
and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended  
recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the  
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any  
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please notify me immediately at +1 (202) 905-2081 and delete the  
original message.

If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that  
electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this  
message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise  
protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special  
arrangements will be made.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080413/cf946c42/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Apr 13 18:51:21 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:51:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations received
 to-date
Message-ID: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>

Dear IGC Caucus:

As of  April 14, 08 - 00:30 Geneva Time (the deadline for submissions)  
-  32 Candidates statements and/or expression of interest have been  
submitted to the IGC  nominating committee.

Breakdown:

1. By region

Africa - 8, 25%
Asia Pacific - 9, 28.125 %
Europe - 5, 15.625%
LAC - 5, 15.625%
North America - 5, 15.625%

2. By Gender

Male - 25, 78.125 %
Female - 7, 21.875 %


Robert Guerra
IGC 08 Nomcom Chair

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 01:53:11 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:53:11 +0300
Subject: [governance] another example of enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804132253y7460a794j27826bb6bf3374a5@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.turk.internet.com/haber/yazigoster.php3?yaziid=20680

GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN, Germany: The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Lomonosov Moscow State University
Institute of Information Security Issues (IISI) have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to work together on increasing
awareness on Internet issues inside Russia.

"Formalizing how ICANN can work together with IISI will help both
organizations reach out to the broader Russian Internet community and
build increased awareness of issues like Internationalized Domain
Names, IPv6 uptake, cybersecurity and domain name development," said
Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "This MoU is mutually
beneficial since it will ensure both organizations have a direct
connection into what is happening in the global Internet."

The goal of the MoU is cooperation and information sharing on issues
related to Internet governance, IP addresses, and the Domain Name
System (DNS). To make this happen ICANN and the IISI will work to:

Promote the exchange of information in the field of Internet policy,
and Internet security;
Promote the exchange of publications and documentation on current
activities of each party;
Support the organization of workshops and conferences, and;
Investigate the possibility of organizing joint seminars and projects.
"Together we found very constructive common language and understanding
of the issues facing both organizations," said Vladislav Petrovich
Sherstyuk, IISI's director. "IISI is looking forward to the next
concrete steps, and I am confident in the positive results to come."

The MoU was signed at the Second International Forum on Partnership
Among State, Business Community And Civil Society In Ensuring
Information Security in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. This year the
organizers of the meeting include IISI, ICANN, the International
Academy for Sustainable Development and Technologies at the University
of Karlsruhe, and the German-Russian Forum The George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies is also participating in the
event.

A copy of the signed MoU, which was approved by the ICANN Board on 23
January 2008, will be available on the ICANN website.

-- 
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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Apr 14 03:10:23 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:10:23 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] another example of enhanced cooperation
References: <f65fb55e0804132253y7460a794j27826bb6bf3374a5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C08@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Mc Tim
 
I am just back from one week lecturing in Moscow and can confirm that Russia is at the eve of a new approach (and a new wave?) to the Internet. President elect Medwedjew joint the Russian Internet Forum last week and told the crowd that the first thing he is doing in the morning is checking his e-Mail. He signalled a very positive approach to the Internet by his new administration but underlined also the need to "fight against the evil" and to improve the "regulatory framework". 
 
The IISI - the new ICANN partner - was just recently established and is seen as a key institution in Russian Internet community. There are a lot of  other initiatices. Among others, the Moscow Institute for International Relations (MGIMO) of the Foreign Office has started a new research project on the Internet, supported with some millions by the government.  What I observed was, inter alia, a booming blogger scene, a very popular social network called "classmate" (copying more or less facebook), new generation mobile phones everywhere but still little concern about privacy and freedom of expression on the end user side. Even graduate students had nearly no knowledge about RFID. But compared with the "good old times" of the communist system the Internet in Russia offers at the moment an incredible space for freedom of expression for ordinary Internet users, in particular if you contrast this with national television. But it remains to be seen how this is going on in the future with a .rf domain in cyrillic. 
 
Wolfgang 

 
________________________________

Von: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Mo 14.04.2008 07:53
An: Governance
Betreff: [governance] another example of enhanced cooperation



http://www.turk.internet.com/haber/yazigoster.php3?yaziid=20680

GARMISCH-PARTENKIRCHEN, Germany: The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Lomonosov Moscow State University
Institute of Information Security Issues (IISI) have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to work together on increasing
awareness on Internet issues inside Russia.

"Formalizing how ICANN can work together with IISI will help both
organizations reach out to the broader Russian Internet community and
build increased awareness of issues like Internationalized Domain
Names, IPv6 uptake, cybersecurity and domain name development," said
Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "This MoU is mutually
beneficial since it will ensure both organizations have a direct
connection into what is happening in the global Internet."

The goal of the MoU is cooperation and information sharing on issues
related to Internet governance, IP addresses, and the Domain Name
System (DNS). To make this happen ICANN and the IISI will work to:

Promote the exchange of information in the field of Internet policy,
and Internet security;
Promote the exchange of publications and documentation on current
activities of each party;
Support the organization of workshops and conferences, and;
Investigate the possibility of organizing joint seminars and projects.
"Together we found very constructive common language and understanding
of the issues facing both organizations," said Vladislav Petrovich
Sherstyuk, IISI's director. "IISI is looking forward to the next
concrete steps, and I am confident in the positive results to come."

The MoU was signed at the Second International Forum on Partnership
Among State, Business Community And Civil Society In Ensuring
Information Security in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany. This year the
organizers of the meeting include IISI, ICANN, the International
Academy for Sustainable Development and Technologies at the University
of Karlsruhe, and the German-Russian Forum The George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies is also participating in the
event.

A copy of the signed MoU, which was approved by the ICANN Board on 23
January 2008, will be available on the ICANN website.

--
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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 04:23:11 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:53:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Governance and the Sclerosis That Has Set In
Message-ID: <003a01c89e08$c818e1e0$584aa5a0$@net>

Phew.

The book (by a former minister - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arun_Shourie)
this Guardian article is reviewing is available at  
http://www.amazon.com/Governance-Sclerosis-That-Has-Set/dp/8129105241

_____________

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2271578,00.html

Inky fingers


Red and green should never be seen

Marc Abrahams
Tuesday April 8, 2008
The Guardian

Are officers in the Indian government's ministry of steel permitted to 
use ink colours other than blue or black?

Arun Shourie documents the process whereby this question was considered, 
tackled, bumped, spun and, to some extent, resolved. Shourie manages to 
compress the telling to a spare seven pages in his book Governance and 
the Sclerosis That Has Set In.

The matter arose in 1999, when two ministry of steel officials noticed 
some handwritten notations on official papers that crossed their desk. 
The notes were in red and green ink.

The two officials drafted a letter to the department of administrative 
reforms and public grievances, asking whether this was permissible. Six 
days later, the letter arrived at the department of administrative 
reforms and public grievances, having traversed a physical distance of 
less than a kilometre.

Two weeks later, the department of administrative reforms and public 
Grievances sent an office memorandum to the directorate of printing, 
which took three weeks to decide that it was not in a position to issue 
a definitive clarification.

The department of administrative reforms then turned to the department 
of personnel and training, which deliberated for several weeks, then 
replied that the matter could best be handled by the department of 
administrative reforms.

The department of administrative reforms then redirected the question 
internally, recommending it for discussion at the senior officers meeting.

Over the next year, the matter was sent out and on to the director 
general of the national archives of India, who tasked it to his deputy 
director, who issued a letter that noted the relevance of Bureau of 
Indian Standards specifications IS-221-1962 and IS-220-1998, 
IS-1581-1975, and IS-5805-1993, which pertain variously to inks, 
fountain pens, and ball-point pens.

Subsequent consultations with the joint secretary (O&M) in the ministry 
of defence and other officials led to the eventual modification of the 
government's Manual of Office Procedure, enlarging paragraph 32, 
sub-paragraph 9 and also paragraph 68, sub-paragraph 5, which, when 
considered jointly, now proscribe that "only an officer of the level of 
joint secretary to the government of India and above may use green or 
red ink in rare cases" provided, however, that doing so would serve 
appropriate functions.

That's how things stood in 2004, the year Shourie's book appeared.

Should the question be put again to the test, the government might reach 
a different determination. Key links in the original chain of 
consultation and decision-making have changed.

The website of the Bureau of Indian Standards says that standard IS 
221-1962 (ink fluid, blue-black, for permanent records) and standard IS 
1581-1975 (ferro-gallo tannate fountain pen ink - 0.2% iron content) now 
have a new status: "Withdarwn" [sic].

"Withdarwn", too, are the related standards IS-3706-1965 (fountain 
pens), IS-5215-1980 (desk type fountain pens), IS-4498-1978 (nibs for 
fountain pens), IS-4099-1978 (nibs for penholders for general writing 
purposes), IS-2456-1963 (brass strip for pen nibs), and, most ominously 
of all, IS-221-1977 (ink fluid, blue-black, for permanent records).

. Marc Abrahams is editor of the bimonthly Annals of Improbable Research 
and organiser of the Ig Nobel Prize



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 04:54:21 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:54:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IPv[4,6, 4/6] was IGF delhi format
In-Reply-To: <47D94804.9080702@wzb.eu>
References: <20080229131346.GA8781@nic.fr> <20080229180529.B5365E2C14@smtp3.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0802292236m5fc877f5o5939ef3f8aadb6a9@mail.gmail.com> <47D94804.9080702@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080414085420.GA32440@nic.fr>

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 03:28:04PM +0000,
 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote 
 a message of 31 lines which said:

> I once wrote a paper about this discussion. If you are interested:
> 
> http://duplox.wzb.eu/final/jeanette.htm

I just read this paper and it is very good and highly
recommended. Exactly the sort of thing everyone should read to
understand the technical issues at stake.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 05:01:42 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:31:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <C427ADC3.10D83%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080414090152.D1386A6C47@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Bill

 

I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
I take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and
now. Is it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially
ordered on regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than
that. It is to a good extent an industry self regulation regime, which
doesn’t meet even the canons of a good commercial activity regulation
regime. 

 

>Hence, re: “Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
require different governance and policy >approaches,” nope, not me, I think
the issue is >misconstructed.

 

What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
you don’t agree to this proposition? That’s all is what I meant when I said
‘anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) 
.. 

 

>net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.


I have great problem with how ‘global digital divide’ issue was interpreted
by US, and probably form there taken to G-8’s meeting which gave birth to
DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP
and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and
practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don’t want to go into further elaboration, but
needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
support
.. So whether ‘tackling the global digital divide’ really, and
entirely, represented as you say ‘non-commercial aspects’  of the thinking
that shaped present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.

 

In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,
and not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities
(which are increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less
to developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is
the basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global
IG regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
IG if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
so, what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
dichotomy is as you say ‘false’?

 

>I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing >access,

 

Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
If not, ‘there being no one regime’ argument extends to dev agenda issue as
well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these – and what
‘problems’ and ‘issues’ with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire
your imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the
structural problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don’t we do an IGC
workshop on ‘dev agenda in IG’, which I am sure you want to do, and think
APC also mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and
yes, ITfC also have some views on it. 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

 

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you’re replying to me directly:

I don’t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore’s
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you’re offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we’ve been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it’s purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: “Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches,” nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization” ws and on
and on.  That said, if there’s lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
 
Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for
clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael
Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.
 
“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax
on those least able to pay?)”
 
“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with
the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”
 
“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
flow from this.”
 
(ends)
 
Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of
activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet
policy frameworks. 
 
Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including
governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG
arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the
present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within
civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does
show the relevance and importance of the subject

 
So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is
now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an
infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would
agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say
‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial
and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for
all/ most sectors of social activity.) 
 
I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG
related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
workshop.
 
Parminder 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d> 
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> individual
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> consensus
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> mention
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> two
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> hour dash to finalize.
> 
> Few specific comments:
> 
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> to
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> to
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> title as
> > you suggested.
> 
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> to
> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> was
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> now
> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> have
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> clear
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> go
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> 
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >> Governance<?
> >
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> 
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> explored
> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> been
> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> is,
> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> 
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > jurisdiction
> >
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> I
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> (and
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> facto
> > extraterritorial effects.
> 
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> idea
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> jurisdiction
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> other
> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> industry
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> form
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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



***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/d90800d1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Apr 14 05:49:36 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:49:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF survey, was:  Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <122166535@web.de>
References: <122166535@web.de>
Message-ID: <480328B0.30109@wzb.eu>

Hi, the idea of a survey has been discussed several times in the MAG. 
While some members were enthusiastic about it and saw a survey as a good 
opportunities for MAG members to "reach out" and actively engage with 
attendees, others were more sceptical or even opposed to the idea. 
Arguments against a survey were:
* it is difficult to design a good one
* the secretariat has no capacity to actually evaluate the feedback
* a survey could provide opportunities to manipulate the outcome

Personally I am in favor of a survey but taking the potential drawbacks 
into account we need to be clear what we are asking for and how to 
organize it in a way that we can cope with the work and provide high 
quality results.
jeanette

Michael Leibrandt wrote:
> Adam,
> 
> Thanks. Wasn`t it Orwell who said that controlling the past means controlling the future? Seriously, the idea of a survey/questionaire (or even interviews?) is very helpful. That would give us at least a chance to find out what people actualy think about the IGF exercise. Maybe IŽm completely wrong, but I have the feeling that beyond those nice Sunday speaches we always hear during consultations the real attitude is much more sceptical, especially regarding the cost/benefit ratio.
> 
> Michael 
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle 
> Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ginger at paque.net  Mon Apr 14 05:58:41 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:28:41 -0430
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF survey, was:  Where are we with IGC
 workshops?
References: <122166535@web.de> <480328B0.30109@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <004201c89e16$21572ed0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

I agree with Jeanette on all points, particularly on the difficulty of designing a good one. If one is to be constructed, I am willing to help on the design and testing.

Saludos, Ginger
ISOC, UNA-Venezuela
Diplo
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeanette Hofmann 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Michael Leibrandt 
  Cc: Adam Peake 
  Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:19 AM
  Subject: [governance] Re: IGF survey, was: Where are we with IGC workshops?


  Hi, the idea of a survey has been discussed several times in the MAG. 
  While some members were enthusiastic about it and saw a survey as a good 
  opportunities for MAG members to "reach out" and actively engage with 
  attendees, others were more sceptical or even opposed to the idea. 
  Arguments against a survey were:
  * it is difficult to design a good one
  * the secretariat has no capacity to actually evaluate the feedback
  * a survey could provide opportunities to manipulate the outcome

  Personally I am in favor of a survey but taking the potential drawbacks 
  into account we need to be clear what we are asking for and how to 
  organize it in a way that we can cope with the work and provide high 
  quality results.
  jeanette

  Michael Leibrandt wrote:
  > Adam,
  > 
  > Thanks. Wasn`t it Orwell who said that controlling the past means controlling the future? Seriously, the idea of a survey/questionaire (or even interviews?) is very helpful. That would give us at least a chance to find out what people actualy think about the IGF exercise. Maybe IŽm completely wrong, but I have the feeling that beyond those nice Sunday speaches we always hear during consultations the real attitude is much more sceptical, especially regarding the cost/benefit ratio.
  > 
  > Michael 
  > _________________________________________________________________________
  > Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an alle 
  > Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021179
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ____________________________________________________________
  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > 
  > For all list information and functions, see:
  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/e49a2630/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Apr 14 06:21:14 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:21:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IGF survey, was:  Where are we with IGC
 workshops?
In-Reply-To: <480328B0.30109@wzb.eu>
References: <122166535@web.de> <480328B0.30109@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <A7C6E7A4-C786-4477-A271-5633437C8650@ras.eu.org>

Hi Jeanette,

I understand this position from the MAG and/or the secretariat.  
Actually, as (boring) academics know very well, any survey is  
subjective and oriented (biased), even without any willing to  
manipulate anyone or anything. The bias starts with the decision to  
make a survey, is reinforced by the design of the survey, and further  
by the way answers are collected, and is finally completed by the way  
results are presented. As Pierre Bourdieu perfectly - and funnily -  
once argued:

"Given that one may ask anyone anything and that anyone has almost  
always enough good will to answer at least anything to any question,  
even the most irrealistic one, the questioner who, in absence of a  
questionnaire theory,
doesn't ask the question of the specific meaning of his questions,  
takes the risk of easily finding the guarantee of realism of his  
questions in the reality of the answers they receive".

Beware of the headache:) This was my (probably not so good)  
translation of Bourdieu's original quote in French, reproduced below:

« Etant donné, que l’on peut demander n’importe quoi à n’importe qui  
et que n’importe qui a presque toujours assez de bonne volonté pour  
répondre au moins n’importe quoi à n’importe quelle question même la  
plus irréelle, le questionneur qui, faute d’une théorie du  
questionnaire, ne pose pas la question de la signification spécifique  
de ses questions, risque de trouver aisément la garantie du réalisme  
de ses questions dans la réalité des réponses qu’elles reçoivent ».  
[unfortunately, I don't remember the exact reference for this  
monument of Bourdieusian's style :)]

That said, the IGC is neither the MAG nor the secretariat, thus it  
has more freedom to decide to invite as a speaker to its workshop on  
"IGF past, present and future" anyone (academic, consultant,  
journalist..) who already conducted such a survey for his/her own  
purposes, with all due caution with regards to the survey itself and  
its results, just as an introduction to the workshop discussion.

That would be a good solution, which wouldn't require to dedicate too  
much resources on this (a serious survey may take a year of work),  
since the survey is supposed to already exist. We've already had a  
proposal from Janna Anderson (Pew Internet & American Life Project),  
and I'm sure there are also many academics who has conducted such  
surveys.

Best,
Meryem

Le 14 avr. 08 à 11:49, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi, the idea of a survey has been discussed several times in the  
> MAG. While some members were enthusiastic about it and saw a survey  
> as a good opportunities for MAG members to "reach out" and actively  
> engage with attendees, others were more sceptical or even opposed  
> to the idea. Arguments against a survey were:
> * it is difficult to design a good one
> * the secretariat has no capacity to actually evaluate the feedback
> * a survey could provide opportunities to manipulate the outcome
>
> Personally I am in favor of a survey but taking the potential  
> drawbacks into account we need to be clear what we are asking for  
> and how to organize it in a way that we can cope with the work and  
> provide high quality results.
> jeanette
>
> Michael Leibrandt wrote:
>> Adam,
>> Thanks. Wasn`t it Orwell who said that controlling the past means  
>> controlling the future? Seriously, the idea of a survey/ 
>> questionaire (or even interviews?) is very helpful. That would  
>> give us at least a chance to find out what people actualy think  
>> about the IGF exercise. Maybe IŽm completely wrong, but I have the  
>> feeling that beyond those nice Sunday speaches we always hear  
>> during consultations the real attitude is much more sceptical,  
>> especially regarding the cost/benefit ratio.
>> Michael  
>> _____________________________________________________________________ 
>> ____
>> Mit der Gruppen-SMS von WEB.DE FreeMail können Sie eine SMS an  
>> alle Freunde gleichzeitig schicken: http://freemail.web.de/ 
>> features/?mc=021179
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Apr 14 06:39:38 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:39:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <48031d80.1498600a.0421.2c5aSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I¹m unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder¹s
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It¹s certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right¹s implied by
international human rights agreements, but I¹m skeptical we¹d get all that
far with this angle.

Parminder,

We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you¹ve not talked to, processes you weren¹t involved
with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don¹t be bummed if
people are not persuaded by it.
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
political activities you mention.
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
a damn about social empowerment etc.
*Again, I don¹t know what ³the present IG regime² means.  If you¹re
referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
view of a broad range of actors and institutions.
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where Œstructural imbalances¹ are thereby clearly identifiable,
countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
there may not be  Œstructural imbalances¹ requiring more than capacity
building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we¹re talking
about, I wouldn¹t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
previous one will delve deeper into this and I¹m lining up speakers and
cosponsors.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that¹s a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Bill
>  
> I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
> but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
> Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
> which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And I
> take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now. Is
> it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
> regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is to a
> good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn¹t meet even the
> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>  
>> >Hence, re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
>> require different governance and policy >approaches,² nope, not me, I think
>> the issue is >misconstructed.
>  
> What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
> and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
> require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that you
> don¹t agree to this proposition? That¹s all is what I meant when I said
> Œanyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) Š..
>  
>> >net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
>> broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
>> aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.
> 
> I have great problem with how Œglobal digital divide¹ issue was interpreted by
> US, and probably form there taken to G-8¹s meeting which gave birth to DOT
> Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP and
> other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and practice in
> developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving initial
> impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of the
> present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign roots,
> and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in telecom
> and other IT areas. Don¹t want to go into further elaboration, but needed to
> mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and supportŠ..
> So whether Œtackling the global digital divide¹ really, and entirely,
> represented as you say Œnon-commercial aspects¹  of the thinking that shaped
> present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
>  
> In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
> disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
> more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,  and
> not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which are
> increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
> developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
> basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
> regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
> recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
> interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
> similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
> knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in IG
> if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if so,
> what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
> interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
> dichotomy is as you say Œfalse¹?
>  
>> >I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
>> there is no international regime governing >access,
>  
> Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
> your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right. If
> not, Œthere being no one regime¹ argument extends to dev agenda issue as well.
> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these ­ and what Œproblems¹
> and Œissues¹ with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire your
> imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the structural
> problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don¹t we do an IGC workshop on
> Œdev agenda in IG¹, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also
> mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC
> also have some views on it.
>  
> Parminder 
>  
> 
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
> on any one of them, but since you¹re replying to me directly:
> 
> I don¹t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was seen
> in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
> understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects, e.g.
> tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore¹s
> people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
> organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and CS,
> and can say with absolute certainty that you¹re offering a caricature of the
> thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the domestic
> level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the NII
> initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN launch
> (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part of their
> reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of the ITU).
> And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et al
> doesn¹t define ³how the net was seen²  in the US or anywhere else, it was one
> element in a much larger set of debates.
> 
> I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
> there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and in
> Europe, regional) issue at present (we¹ve been here before).  And per the
> above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it¹s purely commercial to
> the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
> re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
> different governance and policy approaches,² nope, not me, I think the issue
> is misconstructed.
> 
> Friendly disagreement, let¹s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
> infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem
> to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND
> the jurisdiction ws AND the ³internationalization² ws and on and on.  That
> said, if there¹s lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine,
> I¹ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would again suggest
> that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of compelling, coherent
> and operationally doable proposals rather than have the sort of wide-ranging,
> multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position statements to the last
> consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
> 
> *The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and we
> have one, Adam¹s self-nomination.
> 
> *Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
> 
> *Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
> operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then drafting
> texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the
> list, then nailing them down.
> 
> *Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
> 
> Suggest we need some structured processes here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/53495df4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 07:43:49 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:13:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <01fe01c89d8b$98412400$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>

> In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the
need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".

 

Yes. ‘Right to the Internet’ is the precise statement of the issue, and we
think it is worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my assertion goes
beyond access and right ‘to’ the Internet, where Internet is considered as a
given entity, not in itself subject to social and political construction,
and therefore to politics and policy. I think the construction of what the
Internet is, in all its layers - logical, content, applications etc (and not
only the infrastructural layer which provided ‘access’ to this Internet) -
itself is as much an issue and space of rights as it is of market based
exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen. 

 

Thus ‘right to the Internet’ should include certain rights to what is ‘on’
the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf
co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different basis of
IG regime than what we see today. We are looking at a rights based approach
to the Internet (not just to access but to the whole of the Internet) rather
than a market based approach. And this distinction between these two
approaches is almost the staple of development discourse today.  And to move
towards such an approach, and the requisite IG regime, we need to
deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and the predominant interests
it represents, and those it excludes, or under-serves. 

 

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

 

Bill and all,

 

I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early history of the Internet in
Developed Countries (I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours for
what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in terms of its ultimate
directions and to a considerable degree it depended on who you talked to or
where you were standing as to which set of priorities seemed uppermost...
But that I think is a side issue.

 

The question that I initially presented was whether or not from a public
policy perspective the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a fundamental
and necessary service i.e. as a counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the
opportunity for democratic participation, and so on.  This came from a
reference to statements by Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such
a service and that this should be one of the broader presuppostions (in
Sweden) underlying decision making around other areas of public policy and
programmes.

 

In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the need
to state that there is a "Right to the Internet" and not simply "Rights
concerning the Internet" .  If it could be argued/established/promulgated
that there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood in a very broad sense)
this would have quite a significant effect in various countries including my
own (and your own as well I think) where for example, the government has
basically ceded to the private sector a determination of whether (based on
the principles "of the market") or not a specific individual, community or
region should have a reasonable (fair and equitable) means to achieve access
to the Internet.

 

(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, this may be THE fundamental
CS issue in the context of Internet Governance... As I've indicated in this
space on a number of occasions to my mind and from where I sit with respect
to the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other issues are for most ICT4D
users on the ground either derivative of this fundamental question or simply
of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...

 

MG 

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you’re replying to me directly:

I don’t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore’s
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you’re offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don’t believe there is “a” regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we’ve been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it’s purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: “Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches,” nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization” ws and on
and on.  That said, if there’s lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
 
Bill,  I am not completely happy with the present title but for
clarification on the content I refer you to the original email by Michael
Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.
 
“However, governments have not similarly acknowledged the public
responsibility attendant on that development which is to ensure some form of
broadly distributed universally accessible public Internet access. (Should
taxpayers be charged a second time for accessing public information
particularly when that second charge would (most generally) represent a tax
on those least able to pay?)”
 
“I would understand the significance of the above from an "Internet
Governance" perspective as reflecting a shift from concerns with Internet
Governance as developing the broad framework for the "governance" of a
privately delivered widely valuable but discretionary service to the
"governance" of a public good being delivered in the public interest with
the various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”
 
“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of Internet Governance
(understood as the Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of affirming,
supporting and reinforcing this latter perspective and working with
governments and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that
flow from this.”
 
(ends)
 
Michael argues from how the Internet service is seen, and the need to derive
from it the appropriate policy response, and indeed the appropriate policy
framework, for Internet, and IG. I will extend it further is an allied
direction – of not only seeing provision of Internet as one kind of service,
but seeing it as a basic infrastructure for some form, and sector, of
activity or the other, and the implications of it for the IG and Internet
policy frameworks. 
 
Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure of global commerce (ref.
documents on US’s idea of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
governance and policy structures and frameworks still conform to such an
view of the Internet. However, increasingly the Internet has become a key
infrastructure of a much greater range of social activities – including
governance, and political activity – but the nature and premises of its
governance remain the same. In fact much of the (a big section of) civil
society’s and ‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present regime of IG
arises from this structural issue, and not just from the issue of how
transparent, accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a vis what they
undertake and profess to do. In fact, this structural problem with the
present IG regime versus the transparency/ accountability issue in the
manner these organizations function is at the base of differences within
civil society – including within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, but this line of argument does
show the relevance and importance of the subject

 
So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is to analyze and debate how
Internet which started chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure is
now the space and infrastructure of a much greater range of social activity,
and (perhaps) cannot continued to be governed as it were a space an
infrastructure of merely commercial and economic activity. Anyone would
agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require different governance
and policy approaches. (Though that may be a bit of an overstatement to say
‘anyone will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion is that commercial
and economic logics, and by implication governance systems, are adequate for
all/ most sectors of social activity.) 
 
I think this question – or set of questions – is at the base of much IG
related contestation, and even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I think
it is important to address and discuss. We would like to do so in this
workshop.
 
Parminder 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d> 
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> individual
> members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> 
> From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> consensus
> building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> mention
> allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> two
> weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> hour dash to finalize.
> 
> Few specific comments:
> 
> On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> 
> > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> >
> >>
> >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> to
> > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> to
> > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> title as
> > you suggested.
> 
> Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> to
> deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> was
> very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> now
> as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> have
> a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> clear
> the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> go
> back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> 
> >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> >>
> >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> >> Governance<?
> >
> > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> >
> > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> 
> I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> explored
> since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> been
> done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> is,
> an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> 
> >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> >> technical and private means/instruments"
> >>
> >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> >
> > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > jurisdiction
> >
> > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> I
> > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> (and
> > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> facto
> > extraterritorial effects.
> 
> Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> idea
> was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> jurisdiction
> and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> other
> architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> industry
> or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> form
> subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> 
> >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> >> implications for IG"
> 
> I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> this
> panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> a
> stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> walled off by IPR rules or what?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 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



***********************************************************
William J. Drake  
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
Graduate Institute of International and
  Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/e9c24e17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 08:10:21 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:10:21 +0100
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <01fe01c89d8b$98412400$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
 <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080414121052.8A0393B2815@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi parminder and all

I haven't been able to follow all of the workshop 
proposal threads, but APC would certainly support 
a workshop advocating a rights based approach to 
internet governance - we've seen constant erosion 
in content focussing on rights and IG since the inception of the IGF process..

i'm not sure that a rights based approach to the 
internet (though very much at the core of APC's 
vision as per the APC IR charter: 
http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/all/apc-internet-rights-charter) 
is the appropriate formulation for the IGF, but i 
imagine you're advocating a workshop that would 
look at a rights based approach to internet governance?

obvisouly, dsicussion of rights to the internet 
would be necessary in rationale/background 
etc..  but if i understand correctly, what would 
be appropriate for the IGF, is what you refer to 
as the 'requisite IGF regime' in relation to rights

karen

At 12:43 14/04/2008, Parminder wrote:
> > In its simplest terms I guess the question is 
> whether there is now the need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".
>
>Yes. ‘Right to the Internet’ is the precise 
>statement of the issue, and we think it is 
>worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my 
>assertion goes beyond access and right ‘to’ the 
>Internet, where Internet is considered as a 
>given entity, not in itself subject to social 
>and political construction, and therefore to 
>politics and policy. I think the construction of 
>what the Internet is, in all its layers - 
>logical, content, applications etc (and not only 
>the infrastructural layer which provided 
>‘access’ to this Internet) -  itself is as much 
>an issue and space of rights as it is of market 
>based exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.
>
>Thus ‘right to the Internet’ should include 
>certain rights to what is ‘on’ the Internet, and 
>also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf 
>co-constructivism in education). All this 
>implies a very different basis of IG regime than 
>what we see today. We are looking at a rights 
>based approach to the Internet (not just to 
>access but to the whole of the Internet) rather 
>than a market based approach. And this 
>distinction between these two approaches is 
>almost the staple of development discourse 
>today.  And to move towards such an approach, 
>and the requisite IG regime, we need to 
>deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and 
>the predominant interests it represents, and 
>those it excludes, or under-serves.
>
>
>Parminder
>
>
>----------
>From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM
>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'
>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>
>Bill and all,
>
>I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early 
>history of the Internet in Developed Countries 
>(I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours 
>for what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in 
>terms of its ultimate directions and to a 
>considerable degree it depended on who you 
>talked to or where you were standing as to which 
>set of priorities seemed uppermost... But that I think is a side issue.
>
>The question that I initially presented was 
>whether or not from a public policy perspective 
>the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a 
>fundamental and necessary service i.e. as a 
>counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the 
>opportunity for democratic participation, and so 
>on.  This came from a reference to statements by 
>Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such 
>a service and that this should be one of the 
>broader presuppostions (in Sweden) underlying 
>decision making around other areas of public policy and programmes.
>
>In its simplest terms I guess the question is 
>whether there is now the need to state that 
>there is a "Right to the Internet" and not 
>simply "Rights concerning the Internet" .  If it 
>could be argued/established/promulgated that 
>there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood 
>in a very broad sense) this would have quite a 
>significant effect in various countries 
>including my own (and your own as well I think) 
>where for example, the government has basically 
>ceded to the private sector a determination of 
>whether (based on the principles "of the 
>market") or not a specific individual, community 
>or region should have a reasonable (fair and 
>equitable) means to achieve access to the Internet.
>
>(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago, 
>this may be THE fundamental CS issue in the 
>context of Internet Governance... As I've 
>indicated in this space on a number of occasions 
>to my mind and from where I sit with respect to 
>the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other 
>issues are for most ICT4D users on the ground 
>either derivative of this fundamental question 
>or simply of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...
>
>MG
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM
>To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
>Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>Hi Parminder,
>
>There are too many conversations going on 
>simultaneously to spend much juice on any one of 
>them, but since you’re replying to me directly:
>
>I don’t agree with your restrictive historical 
>reading of how the net was seen in the Clinton 
>era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a 
>broader understanding in the White House that 
>included the noncommercial aspects, e.g. 
>tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the 
>staff involved---Gore’s people, the NEC, the 
>OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings 
>they organized to build consensus across 
>branches of government, business, and CS, and 
>can say with absolute certainty that you’re 
>offering a caricature of the thinking and 
>efforts. The same multidimensionality was 
>evident at the domestic level and very much 
>reflected in the enormous debates around the NII 
>initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the 
>GEC initiative and ICANN launch 
>(seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit 
>on this, it was part of their reasoning for 
>building something to keep names and numbers out 
>of the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed 
>things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et 
>al doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the 
>US or anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.
>
>I don’t believe there is “a” regime for 
>IG.  There are many regimes.  And there is no 
>international regime governing access, a largely 
>national (and in Europe, regional) issue at 
>present (we’ve been here before).  And per the 
>above, if there was such a regime, the notion 
>that it’s purely commercial to the exclusion of 
>the referenced broader range is a false 
>dichotomy.  Hence, re: “Anyone would agree that 
>the two kinds of areas of activity require 
>different governance and policy approaches,” 
>nope, not me, I think the issue is misconstructed.
>
>Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree 
>rather than debating it ad infinitum.  I would 
>not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless 
>the problem to be addressed was clarified AND 
>the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND the 
>jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization” 
>ws and on and on.  That said, if there’s lots of 
>support for this from others besides you, I 
>fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can 
>actually agree on. I would again suggest that 
>with two weeks left we try to agree a small set 
>of compelling, coherent and operationally doable 
>proposals rather than have the sort of 
>wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made 
>agreeing a few position statements to the last 
>consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
>
>Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
>
>*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, 
>nominations are due by today, and we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.
>
>*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
>
>*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a 
>consensually supported and operationally viable 
>set, getting groups organized around these, then 
>drafting texts and identifying potential 
>speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the list, then nailing them down.
>
>*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
>
>Suggest we need some structured processes here.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> > >> implications for IG"
> >
> > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> > this
> > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> > a
> > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
>Bill,  I am not completely happy with the 
>present title but for clarification on the 
>content I refer you to the original email by 
>Michael Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.
>
>“However, governments have not similarly 
>acknowledged the public responsibility attendant 
>on that development which is to ensure some form 
>of broadly distributed universally accessible 
>public Internet access. (Should taxpayers be 
>charged a second time for accessing public 
>information particularly when that second charge 
>would (most generally) represent a tax on those least able to pay?)”
>
>“I would understand the significance of the 
>above from an "Internet Governance" perspective 
>as reflecting a shift from concerns with 
>Internet Governance as developing the broad 
>framework for the "governance" of a privately 
>delivered widely valuable but discretionary 
>service to the "governance" of a public good 
>being delivered in the public interest with the 
>various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”
>
>“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of 
>Internet Governance (understood as the 
>Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of 
>affirming, supporting and reinforcing this 
>latter perspective and working with governments 
>and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that flow from this.”
>
>(ends)
>
>Michael argues from how the Internet service is 
>seen, and the need to derive from it the 
>appropriate policy response, and indeed the 
>appropriate policy framework, for Internet, and 
>IG. I will extend it further is an allied 
>direction – of not only seeing provision of 
>Internet as one kind of service, but seeing it 
>as a basic infrastructure for some form, and 
>sector, of activity or the other, and the 
>implications of it for the IG and Internet policy frameworks.
>
>Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure 
>of global commerce (ref. documents on US’s idea 
>of Global Information Infrastructure) and its 
>governance and policy structures and frameworks 
>still conform to such an view of the Internet. 
>However, increasingly the Internet has become a 
>key infrastructure of a much greater range of 
>social activities – including governance, and 
>political activity – but the nature and premises 
>of its governance remain the same. In fact much 
>of the (a big section of) civil society’s and 
>‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present 
>regime of IG  arises from this structural issue, 
>and not just from the issue of how transparent, 
>accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a 
>vis what they undertake and profess to do. In 
>fact, this structural problem with the present 
>IG regime versus the transparency/ 
>accountability issue in the manner these 
>organizations function is at the base of 
>differences within civil society – including 
>within IGC – on the attitude to these IG 
>institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit, 
>but this line of argument does show the 
>relevance and importance of the subject

>
>So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is 
>to analyze and debate how Internet which started 
>chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure 
>is now the space and infrastructure of a much 
>greater range of social activity, and (perhaps) 
>cannot continued to be governed as it were a 
>space an infrastructure of merely commercial and 
>economic activity. Anyone would agree that the 
>two kinds of areas of activity require different 
>governance and policy approaches. (Though that 
>may be a bit of an overstatement to say ‘anyone 
>will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion 
>is that commercial and economic logics, and by 
>implication governance systems, are adequate for 
>all/ most sectors of social activity.)
>
>I think this question – or set of questions – is 
>at the base of much IG related contestation, and 
>even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I 
>think it is important to address and discuss. We 
>would like to do so in this workshop.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Drake 
> [<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> > To: Governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would be
> > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> > individual
> > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.  But if
> > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> >
> > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.  Just
> > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> > consensus
> > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> > mention
> > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of the
> > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week latest,
> > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead times
> > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise the
> > two
> > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around and
> > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another 11th
> > hour dash to finalize.
> >
> > Few specific comments:
> >
> > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de> wrote:
> >
> > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential listeners -
> > to
> > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes sense
> > to
> > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least many
> > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> > title as
> > > you suggested.
> >
> > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot of
> > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk about
> > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was not
> > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not equivalent
> > to
> > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop discussion
> > was
> > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be doing
> > now
> > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> > have
> > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> > clear
> > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I wouldn't
> > go
> > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> >
> > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> > >>
> > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> > >> Governance<?
> > >
> > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> > >
> > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> >
> > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> > explored
> > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> > been
> > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to at
> > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization, that
> > is,
> > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a blast
> > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the term
> > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a better
> > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> >
> > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> > >> technical and private means/instruments"
> > >>
> > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> > >
> > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > > jurisdiction
> > >
> > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction< because
> > I
> > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework yet
> > (and
> > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD, for
> > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to my
> > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> > facto
> > > extraterritorial effects.
> >
> > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that the
> > idea
> > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> > jurisdiction
> > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court decisions,
> > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but also
> > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact of
> > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise of
> > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> > other
> > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> > industry
> > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If we
> > form
> > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> >
> > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet -
> > >> implications for IG"
> >
> > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the problem
> > this
> > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist and
> > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones (seems
> > a
> > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > 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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>***********************************************************
>William J. Drake
>Director, Project on the Information
>   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
>Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
>Geneva, Switzerland
>william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>***********************************************************
>
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From tatiw at riseup.net  Mon Apr 14 08:44:22 2008
From: tatiw at riseup.net (tatiw at riseup.net)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:44:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations 
In-Reply-To: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>
References: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>

more women please!

> Dear IGC Caucus:
>
> As of  April 14, 08 - 00:30 Geneva Time (the deadline for submissions)
> -  32 Candidates statements and/or expression of interest have been
> submitted to the IGC  nominating committee.
>
> Breakdown:
>
> 1. By region
>
> Africa - 8, 25%
> Asia Pacific - 9, 28.125 %
> Europe - 5, 15.625%
> LAC - 5, 15.625%
> North America - 5, 15.625%
>
> 2. By Gender
>
> Male - 25, 78.125 %
> Female - 7, 21.875 %
>
>
> Robert Guerra
> IGC 08 Nomcom Chair
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 09:02:08 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:32:08 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Bill

 

>I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I'm unable to think of a
focused >topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

 

I have done it.

 

>Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc. It's certainly an
important >topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured
discussion.  

 

I suggest we have a workshop on it then. As for my commercial /
non-commercial spaces distinction, it comes from the distinction between
market-based approaches and rights-based approaches which as I point out in
an earlier email, is almost the staple of development discourse today. I
used 'commercial and social/ political (non-commercial) possibilities/
activities' phrase because I thought that on this list opposing market based
approach to a right based approach would find even less understanding/
acceptance. I tried to speak of the issue in North-South neutral manner,
without bringing the 'development angle specifically', but that's what I
really want it to lead to. So, OK if you prefer it this way, I am speaking
of market based approach versus rights based approach to IG. Does it make
sense to you now? 

 

As to whether the access issue at all belongs to IG, or global IG, this is
indeed an interesting point. Before I argue my position on this, I wonder
what really is the substance of the 'dev agenda in IG' you propose if
access/ infrastructure issue is entirely taken away from it. I do not want
to look like trying to push you in a corner on this, but I am really really
very curious. What other areas and issues really constitute the substance of
dev agenda. Not the process, in which terms you always define the DA. Can
there be a process without some amount of definitiveness of the substance
(substantial issues) it serves? I myself do see a lot of non-access issues
as dev agenda, while seeing access also a centrally implicated issue in any
dev agenda. Just want to be sure there is some common ground of
understanding between us on this. APC is kind of defining its principal IG
related strategy in terms of access, so this debate does become important,
when you interpret some IGC's resolution to mean that access just doesn't
constitute IG and should not be discussed at the IGF.

 

>The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right's
implied by international human rights agreements, >but I'm skeptical we'd
get all that far with this angle.

 

Yes, we do plan to do that. And for that purpose the CS needs to build the
initial concepts and discourse, and the initial momentum, which is partly
the intention. 

 

>*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes >you weren't involved
with, etc. 

 

This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know 'those people' and have
participated in the 'processes' have the right to talk about them. Sorry,
but to clarify the point, should I then say that you have no right to speak
about 'development processes' because you have not been involved and are not
close to the people who are involved in development etc. I say this just to
show how untenable is your above logic.

 

>McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.

 

Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing
with him?

 

> You should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by >definition means that one cannot
give a damn about social empowerment etc.



I thought we were having a higher level of discussion than to be told
business people can also be good people. I have heard such retorts from the
less intellectually oriented when one discusses structural issues about
capital's and business's mal-influence over policies but I did not expect it
from you. 

 

> I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and
institutions.

> wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks and must
be changed.

 

No, I am not doing either. Just advancing arguments regarding the
limitations of an exclusive market based approach, in trying to advocate an
alternative (as an addition/  corrective) right based approach to the
Internet. This for the purpose of persuading others about the advisability
of the IGC putting its weight behind at least opening up a discussion on
this. 

 

>*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of >economic, social and
political activities >you mention.



Of course it is not. Rights based approaches are not incompatible with
market based provisioning. We have right to education, to health etc in many
places while also having commercial provisioning of education, health etc in
the same area/ place. So perhaps, it not I but you who may be creating false
binaries, which I never meant in the first place. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:10 PM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

 

Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I'm unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It's certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right's implied by
international human rights agreements, but I'm skeptical we'd get all that
far with this angle.

Parminder,

We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes you weren't involved
with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don't be bummed if
people are not persuaded by it. 
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
political activities you mention.
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
a damn about social empowerment etc.
*Again, I don't know what "the present IG regime" means.  If you're
referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
view of a broad range of actors and institutions. 
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where 'structural imbalances' are thereby clearly identifiable,
countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
there may not be  'structural imbalances' requiring more than capacity
building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we're talking
about, I wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
previous one will delve deeper into this and I'm lining up speakers and
cosponsors.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that's a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Bill
 
I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
I take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and
now. Is it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially
ordered on regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than
that. It is to a good extent an industry self regulation regime, which
doesn't meet even the canons of a good commercial activity regulation
regime. 
 
>Hence, re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
require different governance and policy >approaches," nope, not me, I think
the issue is >misconstructed.
 
What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
you don't agree to this proposition? That's all is what I meant when I said
'anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) ... 
 
>net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.

I have great problem with how 'global digital divide' issue was interpreted
by US, and probably form there taken to G-8's meeting which gave birth to
DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP
and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and
practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don't want to go into further elaboration, but
needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
support... So whether 'tackling the global digital divide' really, and
entirely, represented as you say 'non-commercial aspects'  of the thinking
that shaped present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
 
In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,
and not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities
(which are increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less
to developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is
the basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global
IG regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
IG if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
so, what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
dichotomy is as you say 'false'?
 
>I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing >access,

Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
If not, 'there being no one regime' argument extends to dev agenda issue as
well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what
'problems' and 'issues' with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire
your imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the
structural problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don't we do an IGC
workshop on 'dev agenda in IG', which I am sure you want to do, and think
APC also mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and
yes, ITfC also have some views on it. 
 
Parminder 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>  
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you're replying to me directly:

I don't agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore's
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you're offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn't define "how the net was seen"  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we've been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it's purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches," nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let's agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the "internationalization" ws and on
and on.  That said, if there's lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I'll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam's self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/14269616/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 09:12:55 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (b.schombe at gmail.com)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:12:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
In-Reply-To: <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
References: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>
	 <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804140612n1a4f70ffl4c70f06268620418@mail.gmail.com>

very difficult to involve women without to have their agreement, in
africa particulary.

Baudouin

2008/4/14, tatiw at riseup.net <tatiw at riseup.net>:
> more women please!
>
> > Dear IGC Caucus:
> >
> > As of  April 14, 08 - 00:30 Geneva Time (the deadline for submissions)
> > -  32 Candidates statements and/or expression of interest have been
> > submitted to the IGC  nominating committee.
> >
> > Breakdown:
> >
> > 1. By region
> >
> > Africa - 8, 25%
> > Asia Pacific - 9, 28.125 %
> > Europe - 5, 15.625%
> > LAC - 5, 15.625%
> > North America - 5, 15.625%
> >
> > 2. By Gender
> >
> > Male - 25, 78.125 %
> > Female - 7, 21.875 %
> >
> >
> > Robert Guerra
> > IGC 08 Nomcom Chair
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
TEL:00243998983491
EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 09:21:08 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:21:08 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
In-Reply-To: <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
References: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info> <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
Message-ID: <20080414132108.GA21223@hserus.net>

tatiw at riseup.net [14/04/08 05:44 -0700]:
>more women please!

Well, that is all volunteered, or were nominated, right?
If you have any more in mind, I am sure Robert / the nomcomm would be
willing to extend the date a bit?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From b.schombe at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 09:25:16 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:25:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
In-Reply-To: <20080414132108.GA21223@hserus.net>
References: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>
	 <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
	 <20080414132108.GA21223@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804140625x390ca560v3fc37b74ea68044f@mail.gmail.com>

Ok if so ACSIS has a women candidates. If Robert can extend the date, I am
ready to share information and to ask ACSIS cabinet to contact those women.

Baudouin

2008/4/14, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:
>
> tatiw at riseup.net [14/04/08 05:44 -0700]:
>
> > more women please!
> >
>
> Well, that is all volunteered, or were nominated, right?
> If you have any more in mind, I am sure Robert / the nomcomm would be
> willing to extend the date a bit?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
TEL:00243998983491
EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com <EMAIL%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/872bc9c5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 09:29:08 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:29:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <01fe01c89d8b$98412400$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
	 <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804140629p428ab377xe7e6e9c5bd0446ba@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In its simplest terms I guess the question is whether there is now the
> need to state that there is a "Right to the Internet".

We can state it all we want, but that doesn't mean it is independent
of the marketplace.  I have a "right to water" (IIRC via the UN), but
I still have to pay the local water board for it.


>
>
>
> Yes. 'Right to the Internet' is the precise statement of the issue, and we
> think it is worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my assertion goes
> beyond access and right 'to' the Internet, where Internet is considered as a
> given entity, not in itself subject to social and political construction,
> and therefore to politics and policy. I think the construction of what the
> Internet is, in all its layers - logical, content, applications etc (and not
> only the infrastructural layer which provided 'access' to this Internet) -
> itself is as much an issue and space of rights as it is of market based
> exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.
>
>
>
> Thus 'right to the Internet' should include certain rights to what is 'on'
> the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf
> co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different basis of
> IG regime than what we see today.

You are incorrect.  My ability to own and co-construct (as an
end-user/network operator/content producer/$ROLE) the Internet is
EXACTLY the IG "regime" that we have today.

I think that you don't really understand how the network grows,
perhaps the Diplo course will help you.

-- 
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 tatiw at riseup.net  Mon Apr 14 09:31:12 2008
From: tatiw at riseup.net (tatiw at riseup.net)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
In-Reply-To: <20080414132108.GA21223@hserus.net>
References: <F086C3D6-CE85-461B-B320-B3EFFF2E27E1@privaterra.info>
    <1796.127.0.0.1.1208177062.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
    <20080414132108.GA21223@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <2109.127.0.0.1.1208179872.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>

> tatiw at riseup.net [14/04/08 05:44 -0700]:
>>more women please!
>
> Well, that is all volunteered, or were nominated, right?
> If you have any more in mind, I am sure Robert / the nomcomm would be
> willing to extend the date a bit?

I am on my probation period right now :)

looking forward to being able to participate. I have been involved with
gender ICT studies and practices since 2004 in grassroots communities in
brazil and there are plenty of mechanisms that can be implemented to
overcome this syntomatic situation. hope the IGF is also a space where
practices can walk side by side with ideas!

best//
xt

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


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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 09:33:58 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:33:58 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140629p428ab377xe7e6e9c5bd0446ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <01fe01c89d8b$98412400$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <20080414114401.A98ADA6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140629p428ab377xe7e6e9c5bd0446ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080414133358.GA21984@hserus.net>

McTim [14/04/08 16:29 +0300]:
>I think that you don't really understand how the network grows,
>perhaps the Diplo course will help you.

That and perhaps attending one or two apnic meetings and observing the PDP

Seriously, Parminder, your proposals dont work they way they should. At
least listen to Bill Drake if you dont listen to us.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Apr 14 09:40:36 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:40:36 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <480355d9.14be600a.0c07.3ba8SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <C4292B74.10DE1%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Parminder,

*I specifically said you have every right to pose caricatures, and then you
accuse me of saying you don¹t.
*I¹m sorry if suggesting you might talk to some of the people you are
caricaturing in order to understand what they actually think is
insufficiently intellectual and high level.
*You offer a false binary, I question it, then you switch to another binary
and say I¹m using a false binary.  Neat trick.
*DA on IG can address lots of things without doing non-IG issues, e.g. IG
mechanisms pertaining to core resources, technical standardization, network
security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting,
networked trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual
property, jurisdiction and choice of law, speech and social conduct,
cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute
resolution, as well as larger ICT gov mechanisms that have some bearing on
Internet development and use, e.g. telecom, spectrum, etc. I¹ve said this
repeatedly, you know it, and your objective in this particular game is
obvious. 

Not interested in spending time on conversations not conducted in good
faith.  

BD



On 4/14/08 3:02 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Bill
>  
>> >I was going to follow Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
>> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I¹m unable to think of a
>> focused >topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
>> conversation.
>  
> I have done it.
>  
>> >Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder¹s
>> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc. It¹s certainly an
>> important >topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
>  
> I suggest we have a workshop on it then. As for my commercial / non-commercial
> spaces distinction, it comes from the distinction between market-based
> approaches and rights-based approaches which as I point out in an earlier
> email, is almost the staple of development discourse today. I used Œcommercial
> and social/ political (non-commercial) possibilities/ activities¹ phrase
> because I thought that on this list opposing market based approach to a right
> based approach would find even less understanding/ acceptance. I tried to
> speak of the issue in North-South neutral manner, without bringing the
> Œdevelopment angle specifically¹, but that¹s what I really want it to lead to.
> So, OK if you prefer it this way, I am speaking of market based approach
> versus rights based approach to IG. Does it make sense to you now?
>  
> As to whether the access issue at all belongs to IG, or global IG, this is
> indeed an interesting point. Before I argue my position on this, I wonder what
> really is the substance of the Œdev agenda in IG¹ you propose if access/
> infrastructure issue is entirely taken away from it. I do not want to look
> like trying to push you in a corner on this, but I am really really very
> curious. What other areas and issues really constitute the substance of dev
> agenda. Not the process, in which terms you always define the DA. Can there be
> a process without some amount of definitiveness of the substance (substantial
> issues) it serves? I myself do see a lot of non-access issues as dev agenda,
> while seeing access also a centrally implicated issue in any dev agenda. Just
> want to be sure there is some common ground of understanding between us on
> this. APC is kind of defining its principal IG related strategy in terms of
> access, so this debate does become important, when you interpret some IGC¹s
> resolution to mean that access just doesn¹t constitute IG and should not be
> discussed at the IGF.
>  
>> >The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right¹s
>> implied by international human rights agreements, >but I¹m skeptical we¹d get
>> all that far with this angle.
>  
> Yes, we do plan to do that. And for that purpose the CS needs to build the
> initial concepts and discourse, and the initial momentum, which is partly the
> intention. 
>  
>> >*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
>> activities of people you¹ve not talked to, processes >you weren¹t involved
>> with, etc. 
>  
> This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know Œthose people¹ and have
> participated in the Œprocesses¹ have the right to talk about them. Sorry, but
> to clarify the point, should I then say that you have no right to speak about
> Œdevelopment processes¹ because you have not been involved and are not close
> to the people who are involved in development etcŠ I say this just to show how
> untenable is your above logic.
>  
>> >McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.
>  
> Don¹t know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
> telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
> because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with technical
> minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing with him?
>  
>> > You should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
>> decided whether working in industry by >definition means that one cannot give
>> a damn about social empowerment etc.
> 
> 
> I thought we were having a higher level of discussion than to be told business
> people can also be good people. I have heard such retorts from the less
> intellectually oriented when one discusses structural issues about capital¹s
> and business¹s mal-influence over policies but I did not expect it from you.
>  
>> > I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and
>> institutionsŠ
>> > wouldn¹t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks and must
>> be changedŠ
>  
> No, I am not doing either. Just advancing arguments regarding the limitations
> of an exclusive market based approach, in trying to advocate an alternative
> (as an addition/  corrective) right based approach to the Internet. This for
> the purpose of persuading others about the advisability of the IGC putting its
> weight behind at least opening up a discussion on this.
>  
>> >*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
>> intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of >economic, social and
>> political activities >you mention.
> 
> 
> Of course it is not. Rights based approaches are not incompatible with market
> based provisioning. We have right to education, to health etc in many places
> while also having commercial provisioning of education, health etc in the same
> area/ place. So perhaps, it not I but you who may be creating false binaries,
> which I never meant in the first place.
>  
> Parminder 
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:10 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  
> Hi,
> 
> I was going to follow Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I¹m unable to think of a focused
> topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular conversation.
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder¹s
> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It¹s certainly an
> important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
> The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion, given
> that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional policies
> rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG, rather than
> global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it would be
> useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in GAID, as well
> as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the various national
> and municipal approaches to universal access, both commercial and alternative,
> could be usefully compared and critiqued and a rights-based approach advanced.
> But since the caucus argued in its February position statements that the IGF
> should really be focused on IG, and Nitin included the point in his summary, I
> think it would be odd for us to turn around and propose a ws that runs
> opposite of our stance.  The only obvious way to get around this would be to
> claim the right¹s implied by international human rights agreements, but I¹m
> skeptical we¹d get all that far with this angle.
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on this,
> so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful discussions
> like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could plausibly pull
> together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
> *Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
> activities of people you¹ve not talked to, processes you weren¹t involved
> with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
> orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don¹t be bummed if people
> are not persuaded by it.
> *Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
> intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
> political activities you mention.
> *Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
> Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
> engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for some).
> But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You should talk
> to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then decided whether
> working in industry by definition means that one cannot give a damn about
> social empowerment etc.
> *Again, I don¹t know what ³the present IG regime² means.  If you¹re referring
> to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry has too much
> influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should push for a
> better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad
> range of actors and institutions.
> *To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
> intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
> outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
> cases where Œstructural imbalances¹ are thereby clearly identifiable,
> countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more difficult,
> but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases there may
> not be  Œstructural imbalances¹ requiring more than capacity building and some
> institutional reforms.  It depends what we¹re talking about, I wouldn¹t
> prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks and must be changed,
> at least not if we want to do more than talk among ourselves.  The ws I said
> weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the previous one will delve deeper
> into this and I¹m lining up speakers and cosponsors.
> 
> The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
> caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic here
> quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
> consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
> mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that¹s a plenty full plate.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill 
> 
> On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Bill
>  
> I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
> but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
> Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
> which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And I
> take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now. Is
> it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
> regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is to a
> good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn¹t meet even the
> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>  
>> >Hence, re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
>> require different governance and policy >approaches,² nope, not me, I think
>> the issue is >misconstructed.
>  
> What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
> and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
> require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that you
> don¹t agree to this proposition? That¹s all is what I meant when I said
> Œanyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) Š..
>  
>> >net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
>> broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
>> aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.
> 
> I have great problem with how Œglobal digital divide¹ issue was interpreted by
> US, and probably form there taken to G-8¹s meeting which gave birth to DOT
> Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP and
> other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and practice in
> developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving initial
> impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of the
> present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign roots,
> and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in telecom
> and other IT areas. Don¹t want to go into further elaboration, but needed to
> mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and supportŠ..
> So whether Œtackling the global digital divide¹ really, and entirely,
> represented as you say Œnon-commercial aspects¹  of the thinking that shaped
> present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
>  
> In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
> disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
> more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity, and
> not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which are
> increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
> developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
> basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
> regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
> recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
> interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
> similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
> knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in IG
> if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if so,
> what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
> interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
> dichotomy is as you say Œfalse¹?
>  
>> >I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
>> there is no international regime governing >access,
> 
> Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
> your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right. If
> not, Œthere being no one regime¹ argument extends to dev agenda issue as well.
> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these ­ and what Œproblems¹
> and Œissues¹ with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire your
> imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the structural
> problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don¹t we do an IGC workshop on
> Œdev agenda in IG¹, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also
> mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC
> also have some views on it.
>  
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> 
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
> on any one of them, but since you¹re replying to me directly:
> 
> I don¹t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was seen
> in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
> understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects, e.g.
> tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore¹s
> people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
> organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and CS,
> and can say with absolute certainty that you¹re offering a caricature of the
> thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the domestic
> level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the NII
> initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN launch
> (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part of their
> reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of the ITU).
> And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et al
> doesn¹t define ³how the net was seen²  in the US or anywhere else, it was one
> element in a much larger set of debates.
> 
> I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
> there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and in
> Europe, regional) issue at present (we¹ve been here before).  And per the
> above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it¹s purely commercial to
> the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
> re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
> different governance and policy approaches,² nope, not me, I think the issue
> is misconstructed.
> 
> Friendly disagreement, let¹s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
> infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem
> to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND
> the jurisdiction ws AND the ³internationalization² ws and on and on.  That
> said, if there¹s lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine,
> I¹ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would again suggest
> that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of compelling, coherent
> and operationally doable proposals rather than have the sort of wide-ranging,
> multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position statements to the last
> consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
> 
> *The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and we
> have one, Adam¹s self-nomination.
> 
> *Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
> 
> *Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
> operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then drafting
> texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the
> list, then nailing them down.
> 
> *Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
> 
> Suggest we need some structured processes here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/9b68481e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 09:42:54 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:12:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
In-Reply-To: <2109.127.0.0.1.1208179872.squirrel@tern.riseup.net>
Message-ID: <20080414134302.7AA996784F@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Tatiana

What you call as probation is only for substantive roles in the IGC -
participating in nomcom, voting etc. It does not extend to self-nomination
(or being nominated by someone else) for being considered as IGC nominee for
MAG. I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding on this issue. 

As for the deadline extension it is for the nomcom to take the call. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tatiw at riseup.net [mailto:tatiw at riseup.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:01 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: tatiw at riseup.net; Robert Guerra
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on nominations
> 
> > tatiw at riseup.net [14/04/08 05:44 -0700]:
> >>more women please!
> >
> > Well, that is all volunteered, or were nominated, right?
> > If you have any more in mind, I am sure Robert / the nomcomm would be
> > willing to extend the date a bit?
> 
> I am on my probation period right now :)
> 
> looking forward to being able to participate. I have been involved with
> gender ICT studies and practices since 2004 in grassroots communities in
> brazil and there are plenty of mechanisms that can be implemented to
> overcome this syntomatic situation. hope the IGF is also a space where
> practices can walk side by side with ideas!
> 
> best//
> xt
> 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 09:51:04 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:51:04 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>
> >McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.
>
>
>
> Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
> telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
> because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
> technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing
> with him?

This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
a plain falsehood.

I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.

As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
conducted in good faith.


-- 
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  Mon Apr 14 09:52:54 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:22:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414121052.8A0393B2815@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080414135314.3D5C9A6C76@smtp2.electricembers.net>



> i'm not sure that a rights based approach to the
> internet (though very much at the core of APC's
> vision as per the APC IR charter:
> http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/all/apc-internet-rights-charter)
> is the appropriate formulation for the IGF, but i
> imagine you're advocating a workshop that would
> look at a rights based approach to internet governance?
> 
> obvisouly, dsicussion of rights to the internet
> would be necessary in rationale/background
> etc..  but if i understand correctly, what would
> be appropriate for the IGF, is what you refer to
> as the 'requisite IGF regime' in relation to rights
> 
> karen

Yes, Karen, we are speaking about a rights based approach to IG and
consequentially the 'requisite IG regime'.

Something like a workshop on - 'A rights based approach to the Internet -
the implications for IG'. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:40 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; 'Michael Gurstein';
> governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> hi parminder and all
> 
> I haven't been able to follow all of the workshop
> proposal threads, but APC would certainly support
> a workshop advocating a rights based approach to
> internet governance - we've seen constant erosion
> in content focussing on rights and IG since the inception of the IGF
> process..
> 
> i'm not sure that a rights based approach to the
> internet (though very much at the core of APC's
> vision as per the APC IR charter:
> http://www.apc.org/en/pubs/briefs/policy/all/apc-internet-rights-charter)
> is the appropriate formulation for the IGF, but i
> imagine you're advocating a workshop that would
> look at a rights based approach to internet governance?
> 
> obvisouly, dsicussion of rights to the internet
> would be necessary in rationale/background
> etc..  but if i understand correctly, what would
> be appropriate for the IGF, is what you refer to
> as the 'requisite IGF regime' in relation to rights
> 
> karen
> 
> At 12:43 14/04/2008, Parminder wrote:
> > > In its simplest terms I guess the question is
> > whether there is now the need to state that there is a "Right to the
> Internet".
> >
> >Yes. ‘Right to the Internet’ is the precise
> >statement of the issue, and we think it is
> >worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my
> >assertion goes beyond access and right ‘to’ the
> >Internet, where Internet is considered as a
> >given entity, not in itself subject to social
> >and political construction, and therefore to
> >politics and policy. I think the construction of
> >what the Internet is, in all its layers -
> >logical, content, applications etc (and not only
> >the infrastructural layer which provided
> >‘access’ to this Internet) -  itself is as much
> >an issue and space of rights as it is of market
> >based exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.
> >
> >Thus ‘right to the Internet’ should include
> >certain rights to what is ‘on’ the Internet, and
> >also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf
> >co-constructivism in education). All this
> >implies a very different basis of IG regime than
> >what we see today. We are looking at a rights
> >based approach to the Internet (not just to
> >access but to the whole of the Internet) rather
> >than a market based approach. And this
> >distinction between these two approaches is
> >almost the staple of development discourse
> >today.  And to move towards such an approach,
> >and the requisite IG regime, we need to
> >deconstruct the basis of the present regime, and
> >the predominant interests it represents, and
> >those it excludes, or under-serves.
> >
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >----------
> >From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> >Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:57 PM
> >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'William Drake'; 'Singh, Parminder'
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >
> >Bill and all,
> >
> >I'll chime in a bit here as well... The early
> >history of the Internet in Developed Countries
> >(I have a somewhat parallel familiarity to yours
> >for what happened in Canada) is a tangled one in
> >terms of its ultimate directions and to a
> >considerable degree it depended on who you
> >talked to or where you were standing as to which
> >set of priorities seemed uppermost... But that I think is a side issue.
> >
> >The question that I initially presented was
> >whether or not from a public policy perspective
> >the Internet should/could (now) be seen as a
> >fundamental and necessary service i.e. as a
> >counterpart to clean water, fresh air, the
> >opportunity for democratic participation, and so
> >on.  This came from a reference to statements by
> >Swedish Ministers that the Internet now was such
> >a service and that this should be one of the
> >broader presuppostions (in Sweden) underlying
> >decision making around other areas of public policy and programmes.
> >
> >In its simplest terms I guess the question is
> >whether there is now the need to state that
> >there is a "Right to the Internet" and not
> >simply "Rights concerning the Internet" .  If it
> >could be argued/established/promulgated that
> >there is a "Right to the Internet" (understood
> >in a very broad sense) this would have quite a
> >significant effect in various countries
> >including my own (and your own as well I think)
> >where for example, the government has basically
> >ceded to the private sector a determination of
> >whether (based on the principles "of the
> >market") or not a specific individual, community
> >or region should have a reasonable (fair and
> >equitable) means to achieve access to the Internet.
> >
> >(FWIW I think as Parminder said some time ago,
> >this may be THE fundamental CS issue in the
> >context of Internet Governance... As I've
> >indicated in this space on a number of occasions
> >to my mind and from where I sit with respect to
> >the Internet and "Civil Society" all the other
> >issues are for most ICT4D users on the ground
> >either derivative of this fundamental question
> >or simply of a "technical" rather than "policy" interest...
> >
> >MG
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> >Sent: April 13, 2008 3:32 AM
> >To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >Hi Parminder,
> >
> >There are too many conversations going on
> >simultaneously to spend much juice on any one of
> >them, but since you’re replying to me directly:
> >
> >I don’t agree with your restrictive historical
> >reading of how the net was seen in the Clinton
> >era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
> >broader understanding in the White House that
> >included the noncommercial aspects, e.g.
> >tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the
> >staff involved---Gore’s people, the NEC, the
> >OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings
> >they organized to build consensus across
> >branches of government, business, and CS, and
> >can say with absolute certainty that you’re
> >offering a caricature of the thinking and
> >efforts. The same multidimensionality was
> >evident at the domestic level and very much
> >reflected in the enormous debates around the NII
> >initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the
> >GEC initiative and ICANN launch
> >(seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit
> >on this, it was part of their reasoning for
> >building something to keep names and numbers out
> >of the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed
> >things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et
> >al doesn’t define “how the net was seen”  in the
> >US or anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.
> >
> >I don’t believe there is “a” regime for
> >IG.  There are many regimes.  And there is no
> >international regime governing access, a largely
> >national (and in Europe, regional) issue at
> >present (we’ve been here before).  And per the
> >above, if there was such a regime, the notion
> >that it’s purely commercial to the exclusion of
> >the referenced broader range is a false
> >dichotomy.  Hence, re: “Anyone would agree that
> >the two kinds of areas of activity require
> >different governance and policy approaches,”
> >nope, not me, I think the issue is misconstructed.
> >
> >Friendly disagreement, let’s agree to disagree
> >rather than debating it ad infinitum.  I would
> >not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless
> >the problem to be addressed was clarified AND
> >the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND the
> >jurisdiction ws AND the “internationalization”
> >ws and on and on.  That said, if there’s lots of
> >support for this from others besides you, I
> >fine, I’ll roll with whatever people can
> >actually agree on. I would again suggest that
> >with two weeks left we try to agree a small set
> >of compelling, coherent and operationally doable
> >proposals rather than have the sort of
> >wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made
> >agreeing a few position statements to the last
> >consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
> >
> >Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
> >
> >*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves,
> >nominations are due by today, and we have one, Adam’s self-nomination.
> >
> >*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
> >
> >*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a
> >consensually supported and operationally viable
> >set, getting groups organized around these, then
> >drafting texts and identifying potential
> >speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the list, then nailing them
> down.
> >
> >*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
> >
> >Suggest we need some structured processes here.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >On 4/13/08 11:21 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet
> -
> > > >> implications for IG"
> > >
> > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
> problem
> > > this
> > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist
> and
> > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones
> (seems
> > > a
> > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> >
> >Bill,  I am not completely happy with the
> >present title but for clarification on the
> >content I refer you to the original email by
> >Michael Gurstein of 17th May, which I  quote.
> >
> >“However, governments have not similarly
> >acknowledged the public responsibility attendant
> >on that development which is to ensure some form
> >of broadly distributed universally accessible
> >public Internet access. (Should taxpayers be
> >charged a second time for accessing public
> >information particularly when that second charge
> >would (most generally) represent a tax on those least able to pay?)”
> >
> >“I would understand the significance of the
> >above from an "Internet Governance" perspective
> >as reflecting a shift from concerns with
> >Internet Governance as developing the broad
> >framework for the "governance" of a privately
> >delivered widely valuable but discretionary
> >service to the "governance" of a public good
> >being delivered in the public interest with the
> >various "governance" implications that would flow from this.”
> >
> >“Surely a significant role for CS in the area of
> >Internet Governance (understood as the
> >Governance of the Internet) is to find ways of
> >affirming, supporting and reinforcing this
> >latter perspective and working with governments
> >and others to determine the policy/programming approaches that flow from
> this.”
> >
> >(ends)
> >
> >Michael argues from how the Internet service is
> >seen, and the need to derive from it the
> >appropriate policy response, and indeed the
> >appropriate policy framework, for Internet, and
> >IG. I will extend it further is an allied
> >direction – of not only seeing provision of
> >Internet as one kind of service, but seeing it
> >as a basic infrastructure for some form, and
> >sector, of activity or the other, and the
> >implications of it for the IG and Internet policy frameworks.
> >
> >Internet was initially seen as a infrastructure
> >of global commerce (ref. documents on US’s idea
> >of Global Information Infrastructure) and its
> >governance and policy structures and frameworks
> >still conform to such an view of the Internet.
> >However, increasingly the Internet has become a
> >key infrastructure of a much greater range of
> >social activities – including governance, and
> >political activity – but the nature and premises
> >of its governance remain the same. In fact much
> >of the (a big section of) civil society’s and
> >‘progressive groups’ opposition to the present
> >regime of IG  arises from this structural issue,
> >and not just from the issue of how transparent,
> >accountable etc ate these IG institutions vis a
> >vis what they undertake and profess to do. In
> >fact, this structural problem with the present
> >IG regime versus the transparency/
> >accountability issue in the manner these
> >organizations function is at the base of
> >differences within civil society – including
> >within IGC – on the attitude to these IG
> >institutions. Ok, I may be digressing  a bit,
> >but this line of argument does show the
> >relevance and importance of the subject

> >
> >So, what we want to discuss in this workshop is
> >to analyze and debate how Internet which started
> >chiefly as a commercial space and infrastructure
> >is now the space and infrastructure of a much
> >greater range of social activity, and (perhaps)
> >cannot continued to be governed as it were a
> >space an infrastructure of merely commercial and
> >economic activity. Anyone would agree that the
> >two kinds of areas of activity require different
> >governance and policy approaches. (Though that
> >may be a bit of an overstatement to say ‘anyone
> >will agree’, because the neo-liberal assertion
> >is that commercial and economic logics, and by
> >implication governance systems, are adequate for
> >all/ most sectors of social activity.)
> >
> >I think this question – or set of questions – is
> >at the base of much IG related contestation, and
> >even if it appears a bit esoteric to some, I
> >think it is important to address and discuss. We
> >would like to do so in this workshop.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: William Drake
> >
> [<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>mailto:william.drake at gradua
> teinstitute.ch]
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 1:33 PM
> > > To: Governance
> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I still wonder about how four workshop proposals from one entity would
> be
> > > received first in MAG (especially if space constraints + robust demand
> > > compel them to turn some down) and then by the larger 'community' if
> > > approved.  Plus, if IGC co-sponsors any of the events planned by
> > > individual
> > > members/CSOs, the name would sort of be everywhere on the program.
> But if
> > > people, especially our MAGites, think it's not an issue, ok.
> > >
> > > From an operational standpoint, four is a lot to organize properly.
> Just
> > > the one was time consuming enough last year, given the demands of
> > > consensus
> > > building on text formulations, line-up, etc, on list and off, not to
> > > mention
> > > allaying fears outside CS that it would be too "controversial" etc.  I
> > > suggest that opt-in subgroups be established now to formulate each of
> the
> > > proposals, vet these back through the list by the end of next week
> latest,
> > > and then reach out to potential speakers and co-sponsors (long lead
> times
> > > normally needed, especially if we're asking governments).  Otherwise
> the
> > > two
> > > weeks left before the deadline will pass quickly with us going around
> and
> > > around debating across the four and we'll end up having to do another
> 11th
> > > hour dash to finalize.
> > >
> > > Few specific comments:
> > >
> > > On 4/11/08 9:32 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" <michael_leibrandt at web.de>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Le 11 avr. 08 à 16:58, Michael Leibrandt a écrit :
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> 1- "Role and Mandate of IGF"
> > > > ***Is it really worth the time - and attractive to potential
> listeners -
> > > to
> > > > use the ws for ex post analysis? People want to know why it makes
> sense
> > > to
> > > > contribute to the IGF process towards India and beyond. At least
> many
> > > > government guys do. Anyway, past and future could be combined in the
> > > title as
> > > > you suggested.
> > >
> > > Bahiameister, if you check the archives you'll see that we spent a lot
> of
> > > time last year in the caucus and with other stakeholders we approached
> > > having exactly the same discussion about whether it is good to talk
> about
> > > "the past."  I think it was ultimately accepted that the mandate was
> not
> > > agreed in the Neolithic period and that discussing it was not
> equivalent
> > > to
> > > deconstructing cave drawings.  And in practice, the workshop
> discussion
> > > was
> > > very much forward looking, with what was agreed the IGF should be
> doing
> > > now
> > > as a starting point.  I think this was reflected in the ws report.  We
> > > have
> > > a serviceable ws description now, it could be tweaked a little to make
> > > clear
> > > the follow up will build on rather than repeat last year, but I
> wouldn't
> > > go
> > > back and reinvent the wheel unless we just want to blow scarce time.
> > >
> > > >> 2- "Critical Internet Resources"
> > > >>
> > > >> Maybe we can openly say >Internationalization of Internet
> > > >> Governance<?
> > > >
> > > > Why not. A bit of a holdall, though, just like CIR.
> > > >
> > > > ***Agree. Maybe colleagues have a better wording.
> > >
> > > I agree this would be the right focus, value-adding and not really
> > > explored
> > > since WGIG/WSIS.  Better than just "CIR" which it could be claimed has
> > > been
> > > done etc.  One concern: I hate to sound like a poli sci weenie, but to
> at
> > > least some folks, internationalization means inter-nationalization,
> that
> > > is,
> > > an inter-sovereign state process.  Do we want to go there, open up a
> blast
> > > from the past discussion with Russia, Iran, et al. about whether the
> term
> > > means shared sovereignty and intergovernmentalism, or can we find a
> better
> > > framing, something about global multistakeholder gov of CIR?
> > >
> > > >> 3- "IG and global jurisdiction - political, legal, contractual,
> > > >> technical and private means/instruments"
> > > >>
> > > >> Is it really about >jurisdiction< at the global level, or more
> > > >> about >decision making< processes in a wider sense?
> > > >
> > > > For former messages on this, I understand it's actually about
> > > > jurisdiction
> > > >
> > > > ***Maybe I have a problem with the phrase >global jurisdiction<
> because
> > > I
> > > > don`t see a one world government defending a global legal framework
> yet
> > > (and
> > > > don`t want to have that, to be clear). WIPO ADR decisions on gTLD,
> for
> > > > example, are actually not >jurisdiction<. The growing problem is, to
> my
> > > > knowledge, that national/regional jurisdiction more and more have de
> > > facto
> > > > extraterritorial effects.
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm filtering through my own little prism, but I thought that
> the
> > > idea
> > > was to look at the consequences of competing national claims of
> > > jurisdiction
> > > and the extraterritorial extension of laws, regulations, court
> decisions,
> > > etc., not just with respect to CIR (e.g. the US/Cuba business) but
> also
> > > other aspects of IG as well---content issues from Yahoo to YouTube,
> > > e-commerce, IPR, etc.  Raising concerns about the fragmenting impact
> of
> > > unilaterally imposed governance doesn't necessarily point to a "global
> > > jurisdiction" or "world government" solution. Encouraging the exercise
> of
> > > restraint, consultation and coordination etc. would be more appealing;
> > > other
> > > architectures are imaginable as well.  We might even be able to get
> > > industry
> > > or "TC" co-sponsorship on this one, depending on how it's framed. If
> we
> > > form
> > > subgroups to push forward proposals, I volunteer to be on this one.
> > >
> > > >> 4- "Coexistence of commercial and non-profit spaces on the Internet
> -
> > > >> implications for IG"
> > >
> > > I'd like to hear more from proponents as to what exactly is the
> problem
> > > this
> > > panel would address.  Are we saying that such spaces cannot coexist
> and
> > > commercial spaces are somehow going to squeeze out non-profit ones
> (seems
> > > a
> > > stretch) or just that some arenas of the commons are getting partially
> > > walled off by IPR rules or what?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > 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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/i
> nfo/governance
> >
> >
> >***********************************************************
> >William J. Drake
> >Director, Project on the Information
> >   Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
> >Graduate Institute of International and
> >   Development Studies
> >Geneva, Switzerland
> >william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> >***********************************************************
> >
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 10:00:17 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:00:17 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>

McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
>This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
>a plain falsehood.
>
>I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
>
>As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
>conducted in good faith.

I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication gap here,
and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of technical
PDP issues.

I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and meaning no
disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For Change,
he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be taken
over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on the
list.

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 10:39:03 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:39:03 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804140739t7db3e09egd3950417e979c12b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
>
>
> > This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
> > a plain falsehood.
> >
> > I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> >
> > As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> > conducted in good faith.
> >
>
>  I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication gap here,
>  and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of technical
>  PDP issues.
>
>  I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and meaning no
>  disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For Change,
>  he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be taken
>  over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on the
>  list.

I support this idea.
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html says:

Duties of Coordinators

The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to
facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to
reach consensus whenever possible.

IMHO, discussions aren't being so much facilitated, as much as they
are being directed by  the coordinator's political philosophy, which
doesn't tolerate reality (or realpolitik).

-- 
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  Mon Apr 14 10:47:12 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:17:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080414144722.39046E195B@smtp3.electricembers.net>




> > Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim
> keeps
> > telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
> > because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
> > technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you
> agreeing
> > with him?
> 
> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
> a plain falsehood.
> 
> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> 
> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> conducted in good faith.
>

McTim

It must take extra-ordinary smugness (the likely reasons for which I will
not expound at this moment) to object to my assertion that you probably do
think that I should speak less about IG polices because of my lack of tech
knowledge, and as such, being a conversation in bad faith exactly 20 minutes
after you sent an email to me telling me that I just do not how know
Internet works and advising me to take a diplo course. 

>I think that you don't really understand how the network grows, perhaps the
>Diplo course will help you.

And this is not the first time that you and your close follower has openly
pointed to my specific and general ignorance, while you completely fail to
notice that despite both of you at multiple times showing such glaring gaps
in your understanding and knowledge about many basic social and political
issues I, out of good manners, have never pointed to your ignorance and
suggested any basic course or such. 

So, instead of me taking offence to what you say about my ignorance and need
to take some basic course, you take offence to my mere statement that you
often say such things to me. It is also significant that I only made this
observation in response to Bill extending his logic about how one (meaning,
I) should not speak about people and processes one is not directly involved
with to include something you seemed to have said.

(BILL) >...views and activities of people you've not talked to, processes
>you weren't involved with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical
>and administrative orgs.

And in fact your email about 'dilpo' course came after the email in which I
said that you think I shd mind my IG opinions because of lack of knowledge,
thereby giving evidence to what I said a few minutes before. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:21 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > >McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim
> keeps
> > telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
> > because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
> > technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you
> agreeing
> > with him?
> 
> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
> a plain falsehood.
> 
> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> 
> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> conducted in good faith.
> 
> 
> --
> 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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 11:04:48 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:34:48 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414144722.39046E195B@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414144722.39046E195B@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <007a01c89e40$e37e7430$aa7b5c90$@net>

Parminder, why don't you take your social and political issues and apply
them in a context where they would be more appropriate? Such as local ICT
for example - and even there some of them would preferably be replaceable by
actual "on the ground" work rather than long emails.

They require substantial modification before they are even remotely feasible
or make sense in global internet policy issues

I'm not a "close follower"  of McTim, or of Bill Drake. I didn't know McTim
before I joined this list for example.  And while I know Bill Drake, we have
perhaps exchanged at the most a few dozen emails over several years (outside
this list that is), or met briefly at a conference.

It is just that when two entirely different people, different backgrounds
etc, claim that you are showing bad faith in imposing your personal beliefs
and agenda on this group, there's perhaps a bit more truth in there than you
would like to admit.

	suresh


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:17 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim
> > keeps
> > > telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG
> policies etc
> > > because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
> > > technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you
> > agreeing
> > > with him?
> >
> > This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding,
> it's
> > a plain falsehood.
> >
> > I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> >
> > As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> > conducted in good faith.
> >
> 
> McTim
> 
> It must take extra-ordinary smugness (the likely reasons for which I
> will
> not expound at this moment) to object to my assertion that you probably
> do
> think that I should speak less about IG polices because of my lack of
> tech
> knowledge, and as such, being a conversation in bad faith exactly 20
> minutes
> after you sent an email to me telling me that I just do not how know
> Internet works and advising me to take a diplo course.
> 
> >I think that you don't really understand how the network grows,
> perhaps the
> >Diplo course will help you.
> 
> And this is not the first time that you and your close follower has
> openly
> pointed to my specific and general ignorance, while you completely fail
> to
> notice that despite both of you at multiple times showing such glaring
> gaps
> in your understanding and knowledge about many basic social and
> political
> issues I, out of good manners, have never pointed to your ignorance and
> suggested any basic course or such.
> 
> So, instead of me taking offence to what you say about my ignorance and
> need
> to take some basic course, you take offence to my mere statement that
> you
> often say such things to me. It is also significant that I only made
> this
> observation in response to Bill extending his logic about how one
> (meaning,
> I) should not speak about people and processes one is not directly
> involved
> with to include something you seemed to have said.
> 
> (BILL) >...views and activities of people you've not talked to,
> processes
> >you weren't involved with, etc. McTim has made the same point re:
> technical
> >and administrative orgs.
> 
> And in fact your email about 'dilpo' course came after the email in
> which I
> said that you think I shd mind my IG opinions because of lack of
> knowledge,
> thereby giving evidence to what I said a few minutes before.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:21 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
> orgs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim
> > keeps
> > > telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG
> policies etc
> > > because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
> > > technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you
> > agreeing
> > > with him?
> >
> > This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding,
> it's
> > a plain falsehood.
> >
> > I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> >
> > As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> > conducted in good faith.
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 ca at rits.org.br  Mon Apr 14 11:03:06 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:03:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140739t7db3e09egd3950417e979c12b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <f65fb55e0804140739t7db3e09egd3950417e979c12b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4803722A.3000301@rits.org.br>

Let me see if I understand -- two members of the self-attributed
"technical community" (who by their definition would be curiously
detached from the real world of business or government or civil society
-- they are just "technical") are trying to depose Parm from his
coordinator role on political grounds?? Or for just "writing too much"??
Where are we going to here??

--c.a.

McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
>>
>>
>>> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
>>> a plain falsehood.
>>>
>>> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
>>>
>>> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
>>> conducted in good faith.
>>>
>>  I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication gap here,
>>  and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of technical
>>  PDP issues.
>>
>>  I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and meaning no
>>  disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For Change,
>>  he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be taken
>>  over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on the
>>  list.
> 
> I support this idea.
> http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html says:
> 
> Duties of Coordinators
> 
> The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to
> facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to
> reach consensus whenever possible.
> 
> IMHO, discussions aren't being so much facilitated, as much as they
> are being directed by  the coordinator's political philosophy, which
> doesn't tolerate reality (or realpolitik).
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor)
conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no 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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 11:09:44 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:39:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <4803722A.3000301@rits.org.br>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <f65fb55e0804140739t7db3e09egd3950417e979c12b@mail.gmail.com> <4803722A.3000301@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <007e01c89e41$93d23970$bb76ac50$@net>

Well, I don't know.

1. Bill Drake says he doesn't wish to argue with Parminder, citing bad faith

2. In a separate email, re a separate discussion, McTim ditto

3. So, I proposed this.  Or would you classify Bill Drake as part of the
technical community?  Which by the way is neither self attributed, nor
deserving of "quotes" but that's another discussion altogether

Where we are going is a caucus that's heavily split.  And it is not just the
technical community pressing for some things, people with far more "
traditional CS" credentials seem to be doing the same

	suresh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> Let me see if I understand -- two members of the self-attributed
> "technical community" (who by their definition would be curiously
> detached from the real world of business or government or civil society
> -- they are just "technical") are trying to depose Parm from his
> coordinator role on political grounds?? Or for just "writing too much"??
> Where are we going to here??
> 
> --c.a.


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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 11:16:34 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:16:34 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <48036e7a.1abd600a.4785.613eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
	 <48036e7a.1abd600a.4785.613eSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804140816j1705f6f3y4c8be7e5871ec98@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>  > > Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim
>  > keeps
>  > > telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
>  > > because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
>  > > technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you
>  > agreeing
>  > > with him?
>  >
>  > This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
>  > a plain falsehood.
>  >
>  > I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
>  >
>  > As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
>  > conducted in good faith.
>  >
>
>  McTim
>
>  It must take extra-ordinary smugness (the likely reasons for which I will
>  not expound at this moment)

Let me guess... because you think I'm a neo-liberal?? ;-)

to object to my assertion that you probably do
>  think that I should speak less about IG polices because of my lack of tech
>  knowledge, and as such, being a conversation in bad faith exactly 20 minutes
>  after you sent an email to me telling me that I just do not how know
>  Internet works and advising me to take a diplo course.

I never have told you to speak LESS about IG policies, I only want you
to understand that there are community based policy development
processes on other lists, and that those lists are where you can have
an impact on actual policies.  I have repeatedly stated that
historical IG is NOT about technical issues, but is rather
administrative in nature.

>
>  >I think that you don't really understand how the network grows, perhaps the
>  >Diplo course will help you.

Because you said:

"Thus 'right to the Internet' should include certain rights to what is
'on' the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf
co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different
basis of IG regime than what we see today."

Which shows that you don't understand how the net works.  You "own"
your network, you have the right to decide what to put on line, which
protocols to use, and which other networks you connect to.   This is
exactly the IG "regime" we have today, and one that has made it such a
success!


>
>  And this is not the first time that you and your close follower has openly
>  pointed to my specific and general ignorance, while you completely fail to
>  notice that despite both of you at multiple times showing such glaring gaps
>  in your understanding and knowledge about many basic social and political
>  issues I, out of good manners, have never pointed to your ignorance and
>  suggested any basic course or such.

I thank you for your exceptional manners.  I guess those years working
in politics and political education in Washington never paid off for
me.

>
>  So, instead of me taking offence to what you say about my ignorance and need
>  to take some basic course, you take offence to my mere statement that you
>  often say such things to me.

Because I don't "say" the things you "hear".  What I write is much
more subtle than what you wrote that I write.


It is also significant that I only made this
>  observation in response to Bill extending his logic about how one (meaning,
>  I) should not speak about people and processes one is not directly involved
>  with to include something you seemed to have said.
>

Just because you made this observation in response to Bill still
doesn't make it a correct observation!

>  (BILL) >...views and activities of people you've not talked to, processes
>  >you weren't involved with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical
>  >and administrative orgs.
>
>  And in fact your email about 'dilpo' course came after the email in which I
>  said that you think I shd mind my IG opinions because of lack of knowledge,
>  thereby giving evidence to what I said a few minutes before.

As Bill said, you are entitled to your opinions.

Please don't mistake those opinions for the IGC agenda re: IG issues.

Just because you think it, it doesn't mean it's true.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Mon Apr 14 12:21:27 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:21:27 +0200
Subject: Right to keep Parminder as coordinator (and right to work on IGC
 workshops) Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <B6903817-B414-4D72-A760-791554F9B141@ras.eu.org>

Hi there,

Thanks to my interest in caipirinhas (I make the best ones in town,  
even in a Brazilian town..), I've read Carlos's message and have thus  
been alerted of this message from Suresh below, in a thread I  
promised myself to read later, when I would have time.

Could you please Suresh not use us - or at least me - against  
Parminder or anyone else here? Thanks.
Parminder has the right to argue in any substantive discussion, and  
has proven at many occasion, that his substantive positions doesn't  
prevent him to be the perfect coordinator that we need. Last  
occasion, when preparing IGC statement to the IGF consultation of  
February, I really admired his capacities to handle this, and if I  
well remember, he was commended by many people for this.

So, let's stop this.
And let's concentrate first on defining the workshop where we have  
consensus. Other workshops will be organized by other sponsors: the  
IGC is not going to convene all IGF workshops!

Just in case some people haven't understood: we're trying to identify  
workshop themes, not running the workshop discussions themselves:)

Best,
Meryem

Le 14 avr. 08 à 16:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :

> McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
>> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding,  
>> it's
>> a plain falsehood.
>>
>> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
>>
>> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
>> conducted in good faith.
>
> I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication  
> gap here,
> and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of  
> technical
> PDP issues.
>
> I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and  
> meaning no
> disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For  
> Change,
> he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be  
> taken
> over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others  
> on the
> list.
>
> suresh
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 12:26:19 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:26:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] Rights Based Approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <036001c89e4c$47a09af0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Bill,
 
I've been somewhat neutral on whether or not there should be a workshop on
Internet Rights or in Parminder's formulation "Commercial or
Non-Commercial".
 
However, I'd like to make a few points in response to your note below...
    * I'm not sure that "Right to the Internet" is the same as "access as a
right"... I've spent a lot of my time in the last number of years arguing
that there is a difference between "Internet access" as a "Right" i.e. the
means to download and view; and "Internet use" as a right i.e. the means to
make "effective use" of the Internet for the range of individual, community
and other applications/uses/opportunities which the Internet presents.  So
to my mind at least a WS on Right to the Internet goes rather broader than
simply issues of "access" and "availability" although of course those are
implied...
    * while "access" is for the most part the domain of national and
regional policies many of the multilateral and bilateral development
oriented agencies are active in this area and so discussion on global
regimes would not be out of line (guidelines, priorities, standards etc.)
    * finally it seems to me that the three areas which you see as being of
most direct interest i.e. "mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction"
while being of direct concern to those with a non-governmental (mostly I
would suggest an "academic" i.e. critical but not normative) concern in the
"governance" area are not to my mind at least, of that much direct relevance
to conventional and broadly based "Civil Society" (understood as
"normative") concerns.  
 
>From a specifically and if you want "narrowly" Civil Society perspective, a
"Workshop on Right to the Internet" is precisely what CS should be
advocating as only through an acceptance of this approach is it possible to
develop a consistent and Civil Society anchored perspective (rather than
"technical" or "academic") on any of the other issues. (I'm afraid that this
takes us full circle back to the discussion on the nature of Civil Society
but what else can one expect in a discussion of and by Civil Society where
the intention is to articulate a perwspective in a specific subject matter
domain where there is not as yet any clearly articulated normative
framework.
 
MG
  

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 3:40 AM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?



Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I'm unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It's certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right's implied by
international human rights agreements, but I'm skeptical we'd get all that
far with this angle.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that's a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:



Bill
 
I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
I take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and
now. Is it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially
ordered on regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than
that. It is to a good extent an industry self regulation regime, which
doesn't meet even the canons of a good commercial activity regulation
regime. 
 
>Hence, re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
require different governance and policy >approaches," nope, not me, I think
the issue is >misconstructed.
 
What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
you don't agree to this proposition? That's all is what I meant when I said
'anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) ... 
 
>net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.

I have great problem with how 'global digital divide' issue was interpreted
by US, and probably form there taken to G-8's meeting which gave birth to
DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP
and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and
practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don't want to go into further elaboration, but
needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
support... So whether 'tackling the global digital divide' really, and
entirely, represented as you say 'non-commercial aspects'  of the thinking
that shaped present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
 
In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,
and not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities
(which are increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less
to developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is
the basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global
IG regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
IG if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
so, what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
dichotomy is as you say 'false'?
 
>I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing >access,

Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
If not, 'there being no one regime' argument extends to dev agenda issue as
well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what
'problems' and 'issues' with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire
your imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the
structural problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don't we do an IGC
workshop on 'dev agenda in IG', which I am sure you want to do, and think
APC also mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and
yes, ITfC also have some views on it. 
 
Parminder 





  _____  


From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you're replying to me directly:

I don't agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore's
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you're offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn't define "how the net was seen"  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we've been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it's purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches," nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let's agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the "internationalization" ws and on
and on.  That said, if there's lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I'll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam's self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/babde878/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 12:26:19 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:26:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140629p428ab377xe7e6e9c5bd0446ba@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <038a01c89e4c$6a79a800$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

McTim,

The issue of a "Right to the Internet" is rather different from the means by
which one accesses the Internet i.e. whether through a paid service (your
local water board) or some other... 

What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public good is
understood to be realized through the Internet being made available to ALL
within the community.  

How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured (by the
State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation, Public Private
Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter. 

The State, as the representative and means for assurance of the realization
of the public good is the ultimate guarantor that that benefit is available
(that that Right is enforced).  Ultimately, in many jurisdictions Rights
such as these become elements of the law and enforceable through the court
system cf. human rights, gender rights etc.etc. and subject to tort.

The issue of owner, co-ownership, public regulation etc. is of course at the
heart of such issues as Net Neutrality.  In a "Rights" based regime the
Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the rights
of private owners to dispose of their property as and how they wish.  This
at least at the theoretical level has little to do with how the Internet
"grows" etc.etc. 

MG 

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 6:29 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

We can state it all we want, but that doesn't mean it is independent of the
marketplace.  I have a "right to water" (IIRC via the UN), but I still have
to pay the local water board for it.
>
> Yes. 'Right to the Internet' is the precise statement of the issue, 
> and we think it is worthy of a workshop discussion. However, my 
> assertion goes beyond access and right 'to' the Internet, where 
> Internet is considered as a given entity, not in itself subject to 
> social and political construction, and therefore to politics and 
> policy. I think the construction of what the Internet is, in all its 
> layers - logical, content, applications etc (and not only the 
> infrastructural layer which provided 'access' to this Internet) - 
> itself is as much an issue and space of rights as it is of market 
> based exchange, which is how it is at present pre-dominantly seen.
>
> Thus 'right to the Internet' should include certain rights to what is 
> 'on' the Internet, and also to own and co-construct the Internet (cf 
> co-constructivism in education). All this implies a very different 
> basis of IG regime than what we see today.

You are incorrect.  My ability to own and co-construct (as an
end-user/network operator/content producer/$ROLE) the Internet is EXACTLY
the IG "regime" that we have today.

I think that you don't really understand how the network grows, perhaps the
Diplo course will help you.

-- 
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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Apr 14 12:49:57 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:49:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
Change,
> he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
taken
> over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
the
> list.

I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
remain so until we have another election. If you don't like his
performance you can vote against him at that time, if he runs again. Or
put yourself up as a candidate. 

--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 suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 12:50:49 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:20:49 +0530
Subject: Right to keep Parminder as coordinator (and right to work on
 IGC workshops) Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <B6903817-B414-4D72-A760-791554F9B141@ras.eu.org>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <B6903817-B414-4D72-A760-791554F9B141@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <00b201c89e4f$b46f7ef0$1d4e7cd0$@net>

Hi

I am not using you as much as suggesting you as an alternative candidate to
coordinate this process.  As I suggested various others who I think could do
a better job than Parminder has done so far.

This is not a campaign against Parminder, and I personally have no ax to
grind here, beyond an absolutely academic interest in seeing if we cant
actually get consensus here

Given at least two different people accusing him of bad faith in
discussions, I had some doubts, and I expressed them.

If you think Parminder would be the right candidate for this and can get
consensus, that's great. And I sincerely hope that's the case.

Hyderabad doesn’t have caipirinhas, but Kingfisher beer is a fairly
reasonable lager and I will be glad to buy you one (it goes down very well
with biryani - rice + meat)

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:51 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Right to keep Parminder as coordinator (and right to work on
> IGC workshops) Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> Hi there,
> 
> Thanks to my interest in caipirinhas (I make the best ones in town,
> even in a Brazilian town..), I've read Carlos's message and have thus
> been alerted of this message from Suresh below, in a thread I
> promised myself to read later, when I would have time.
> 
> Could you please Suresh not use us - or at least me - against
> Parminder or anyone else here? Thanks.
> Parminder has the right to argue in any substantive discussion, and
> has proven at many occasion, that his substantive positions doesn't
> prevent him to be the perfect coordinator that we need. Last
> occasion, when preparing IGC statement to the IGF consultation of
> February, I really admired his capacities to handle this, and if I
> well remember, he was commended by many people for this.
> 
> So, let's stop this.
> And let's concentrate first on defining the workshop where we have
> consensus. Other workshops will be organized by other sponsors: the
> IGC is not going to convene all IGF workshops!
> 
> Just in case some people haven't understood: we're trying to identify
> workshop themes, not running the workshop discussions themselves:)
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 14 avr. 08 à 16:00, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit :
> 
> > McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
> >> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding,
> >> it's
> >> a plain falsehood.
> >>
> >> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> >>
> >> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> >> conducted in good faith.
> >
> > I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication
> > gap here,
> > and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of
> > technical
> > PDP issues.
> >
> > I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and
> > meaning no
> > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> > Change,
> > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
> > taken
> > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others
> > on the
> > list.
> >
> > suresh
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 12:52:51 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:22:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net>

Its not a coup, Milton. And I personally don't care who coordinates this,
and don't have an ax to grind here - beyond being an external observer.
 
My opinion though is that Parminder doesn't seem to be achieving consensus
here. And perhaps the best way to get consensus might be someone else in
this role.

Please see my reply to Meryem for the rest.

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:20 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> Change,
> > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
> taken
> > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
> the
> > list.
> 
> I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
> highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
> workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
> remain so until we have another election. If you don't like his
> performance you can vote against him at that time, if he runs again. Or
> put yourself up as a candidate.
> 
> --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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 12:59:12 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:59:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804140959x6300a4e1h5ce321210d871a96@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
>  Change,
>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
>  taken
>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
>  the
>  > list.
>
>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
>  remain so until we have another election.

Or a recall (according to the charter).


-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Apr 14 13:02:40 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:02:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Its not a coup, Milton. 

No. An attempted one. 

> And I personally don't care who coordinates this,
> and don't have an ax to grind here - beyond being an external
observer.

Stick to that role. External observers don't tell organizations who
their leaders should be. 

> My opinion though is that Parminder doesn't seem to be achieving
consensus
> here. And perhaps the best way to get consensus might be someone else
in
> this role.

Bah. We don't have consensus because we have different values and come
from different backgrounds or just disagree, and because asynchronous
text is the absolute worst medium for achieving consensus ever devised
by man. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 13:26:55 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 13:26:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <038a01c89e4c$6a79a800$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <f65fb55e0804140629p428ab377xe7e6e9c5bd0446ba@mail.gmail.com> <038a01c89e4c$6a79a800$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public good
is
> understood to be realized through the Internet being made available to
ALL
> within the community.
> 
> How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured
(by
> the State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation,
Public
> Private Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter.

Oh but it does. There is this little thing called the budget constraint.

It means that society has many, many things that it wants and needs but
perhaps not enough money in the treasury to get them all. So you have to
choose. 

Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back on
the right to health care or education or some other good. Or it may mean
restricting freedom of choice; in setting up subsidy schemes for the
favored good, one can create a kind of economic protectionism or
inappropriate restrictions on human behavior in order to preserve the
subsidy or protect the institutions delivering the subsidy. 

This is why I don't like it when people confuse _policy_ with _rights_.
If you say, "we should have a policy of promoting Internet access," fine
-- one can then enter into reasonable negotiations and budget
allocations regarding how much of the state's or private actor's
resources are to be committed to one goal versus another. And you don't
lose sight of the question whether the policy actually succeeds in
promoting internet access. But if one says one has a "right" to a
service, the production and consumption of which inherently draws
resources away from other things, then one cannot make a rational
decision about relative levels of resource allocation. And the rights
language also encourages one to forget about whether the policy used to
achieve greater levels of access is effective and efficient. Just look
at what you said above - "really doesn't matter" how you do it. 

> 
> In a "Rights" based regime the
> Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the
> rights of private owners to dispose of their property as and how they
> wish. This at least at the theoretical level has little to do with how

> the Internet "grows" etc.etc.

But it has everything to do with how the Internet grows. If the rights
of private owners - who by the way probably comprise 80% or more of the
Internet - to recoup investments in networks or internet services is
regulated too much or completely undermined, then the Internet ceases to
grow. And no amount of "rights" language on pieces of paper will make it
grow. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 13:33:22 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:03:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <C4292B74.10DE1%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080414173345.13283678FA@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Bill

 

Before launching into personal accusations you should realize where this
conversation started from. I and some others proposed a workshop (about
which I kept saying I still have some problem with the title and it needs to
evolve further). And you categorically said,

 

>I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem to be
addressed was clarified.

 

I want the workshop, and so I tried to clarify the issue. And some points
will naturally get debated in the process. Obviously any such clarification
cannot take the exact route you may want it to take. In fact, in the process
of such clarification/ debate some further support for the workshop did come
up. This is despite your saying after every email, starting with the first
one, that you really don't want to debate issues. (This stance of, 'I really
do not want to debate', 'I don't have the time' etc, is really quite
impolite to keep saying in every email while carrying on a debate, but
that's a different matter.)

 

In the next round of discussion, when Michael too came in, you cited an IGC
resolution to infer that we seem to agree that access is not an IG issue.
You also said that a workshop on 'access as a right' was 'opposite of our
(IGC's) stance'. You can't expect me not to debate this as well. I can't
understand your irritation when I debate these issues and assertions.  And
then just because I ask you what is the substantive content of DA if access
is completely removed (a point of legitimate intellectual contestation), you
accuse me of playing a game with 'obvious' agenda. I don't think anyone got
what you are calling as the obvious 'objective' of my 'particular game'. Why
don't you spell it out? Now that you have made the allegation, you must
substantiate it.

 

Why is it wrong to contest this view of access as being a non IG issue, and
in that connection try a debate on DA? This is what this list is for. And I
needed to make my case for the workshop, which you weren't willing to go
along with unless more clarification is given.

 

I have a great problem about your ascribing an ulterior 'agenda' to me, and
accusing me of 'playing games'- and I request you come out clearly what you
mean by this. It is not a right given only to some people to take offence
(as you have to my email, for reasons I cant understand, and two others have
followed suit). I take serious offence at such ascriptions made by you, and
ask for clarification.

 

And then you call my engagement as being in bad faith. Please substantiate.
Such expressions will lower the level of conversation as in the next round
the other person can be expected to use worse ascriptions. And if there is
anything in my email that make you feel justified to use such terms, please
point that out. You said I was making false caricatures, and in reply I said
you may be making false binaries. And that brought forth all the above
unacceptable references from you.

 

I must repeat that I have specifically asked you to either substantiate or
withdraw your allegations.

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 7:11 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: [governance] Re: rights based approach to the Internet

 

Parminder,

*I specifically said you have every right to pose caricatures, and then you
accuse me of saying you don't.  
*I'm sorry if suggesting you might talk to some of the people you are
caricaturing in order to understand what they actually think is
insufficiently intellectual and high level.  
*You offer a false binary, I question it, then you switch to another binary
and say I'm using a false binary.  Neat trick.
*DA on IG can address lots of things without doing non-IG issues, e.g. IG
mechanisms pertaining to core resources, technical standardization, network
security, international interconnection, e-commerce, e-contracting,
networked trade in digital goods and services, digital intellectual
property, jurisdiction and choice of law, speech and social conduct,
cultural and linguistic diversity, privacy and consumer protection, dispute
resolution, as well as larger ICT gov mechanisms that have some bearing on
Internet development and use, e.g. telecom, spectrum, etc. I've said this
repeatedly, you know it, and your objective in this particular game is
obvious. 

Not interested in spending time on conversations not conducted in good
faith.  

BD



On 4/14/08 3:02 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Bill
 
>I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but >I'm unable to think of a
focused >topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.
 
I have done it.
 
>Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial >spaces etc. It's certainly an
important >topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured
discussion.  
 
I suggest we have a workshop on it then. As for my commercial /
non-commercial spaces distinction, it comes from the distinction between
market-based approaches and rights-based approaches which as I point out in
an earlier email, is almost the staple of development discourse today. I
used 'commercial and social/ political (non-commercial) possibilities/
activities' phrase because I thought that on this list opposing market based
approach to a right based approach would find even less understanding/
acceptance. I tried to speak of the issue in North-South neutral manner,
without bringing the 'development angle specifically', but that's what I
really want it to lead to. So, OK if you prefer it this way, I am speaking
of market based approach versus rights based approach to IG. Does it make
sense to you now? 
 
As to whether the access issue at all belongs to IG, or global IG, this is
indeed an interesting point. Before I argue my position on this, I wonder
what really is the substance of the 'dev agenda in IG' you propose if
access/ infrastructure issue is entirely taken away from it. I do not want
to look like trying to push you in a corner on this, but I am really really
very curious. What other areas and issues really constitute the substance of
dev agenda. Not the process, in which terms you always define the DA. Can
there be a process without some amount of definitiveness of the substance
(substantial issues) it serves? I myself do see a lot of non-access issues
as dev agenda, while seeing access also a centrally implicated issue in any
dev agenda. Just want to be sure there is some common ground of
understanding between us on this. APC is kind of defining its principal IG
related strategy in terms of access, so this debate does become important,
when you interpret some IGC's resolution to mean that access just doesn't
constitute IG and should not be discussed at the IGF.
 
>The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right's
implied by international human rights agreements, >but I'm skeptical we'd
get all that far with this angle.
 
Yes, we do plan to do that. And for that purpose the CS needs to build the
initial concepts and discourse, and the initial momentum, which is partly
the intention. 
 
>*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes >you weren't involved
with, etc. 
 
This is a strange assertion. Do only those who know 'those people' and have
participated in the 'processes' have the right to talk about them. Sorry,
but to clarify the point, should I then say that you have no right to speak
about 'development processes' because you have not been involved and are not
close to the people who are involved in development etc. I say this just to
show how untenable is your above logic.
 
>McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative orgs.
 
Don't know what you are referring to. Though generally I know McTim keeps
telling me that I should not be speaking that much about IG policies etc
because of my inadequate technical knowledge and non-peer-ship with
technical minds and what he calls as technical community. Are you agreeing
with him?
 
> You should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by >definition means that one cannot
give a damn about social empowerment etc.


I thought we were having a higher level of discussion than to be told
business people can also be good people. I have heard such retorts from the
less intellectually oriented when one discusses structural issues about
capital's and business's mal-influence over policies but I did not expect it
from you. 
 
> I think this is an overly totalizing view of a broad range of actors and
institutions.
> wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks and must
be changed.
 
No, I am not doing either. Just advancing arguments regarding the
limitations of an exclusive market based approach, in trying to advocate an
alternative (as an addition/  corrective) right based approach to the
Internet. This for the purpose of persuading others about the advisability
of the IGC putting its weight behind at least opening up a discussion on
this. 
 
>*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of >economic, social and
political activities >you mention.


Of course it is not. Rights based approaches are not incompatible with
market based provisioning. We have right to education, to health etc in many
places while also having commercial provisioning of education, health etc in
the same area/ place. So perhaps, it not I but you who may be creating false
binaries, which I never meant in the first place. 
 
Parminder 
 



  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>  
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:10 PM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem's suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I'm unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder's
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It's certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right's implied by
international human rights agreements, but I'm skeptical we'd get all that
far with this angle.

Parminder,

We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you've not talked to, processes you weren't involved
with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don't be bummed if
people are not persuaded by it. 
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
political activities you mention.
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
a damn about social empowerment etc.
*Again, I don't know what "the present IG regime" means.  If you're
referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
view of a broad range of actors and institutions. 
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where 'structural imbalances' are thereby clearly identifiable,
countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
there may not be  'structural imbalances' requiring more than capacity
building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we're talking
about, I wouldn't prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
previous one will delve deeper into this and I'm lining up speakers and
cosponsors.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that's a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
Bill
 
I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
I take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and
now. Is it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially
ordered on regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than
that. It is to a good extent an industry self regulation regime, which
doesn't meet even the canons of a good commercial activity regulation
regime. 
 
>Hence, re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
require different governance and policy >approaches," nope, not me, I think
the issue is >misconstructed.
 
What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
you don't agree to this proposition? That's all is what I meant when I said
'anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) ... 
 
>net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.

I have great problem with how 'global digital divide' issue was interpreted
by US, and probably form there taken to G-8's meeting which gave birth to
DOT Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP
and other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and
practice in developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving
initial impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of
the present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
roots, and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
telecom and other IT areas. Don't want to go into further elaboration, but
needed to mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
support... So whether 'tackling the global digital divide' really, and
entirely, represented as you say 'non-commercial aspects'  of the thinking
that shaped present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
 
In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity, and
not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which
are increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
IG if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
so, what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
dichotomy is as you say 'false'?
 
>I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing >access,

Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
If not, 'there being no one regime' argument extends to dev agenda issue as
well. And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what
'problems' and 'issues' with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire
your imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the
structural problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don't we do an IGC
workshop on 'dev agenda in IG', which I am sure you want to do, and think
APC also mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and
yes, ITfC also have some views on it. 
 
Parminder 

  _____  


From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d>
<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch%5d> 
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?

Hi Parminder,

There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
on any one of them, but since you're replying to me directly:

I don't agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
e.g. tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore's
people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and
CS, and can say with absolute certainty that you're offering a caricature of
the thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
domestic level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the
NII initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
launch (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part
of their reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of
the ITU).  And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to
mobilize ITAA et al doesn't define "how the net was seen"  in the US or
anywhere else, it was one element in a much larger set of debates.

I don't believe there is "a" regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and
in Europe, regional) issue at present (we've been here before).  And per the
above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it's purely commercial to
the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
re: "Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
different governance and policy approaches," nope, not me, I think the issue
is misconstructed.

Friendly disagreement, let's agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
problem to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the
mandate ws AND the jurisdiction ws AND the "internationalization" ws and on
and on.  That said, if there's lots of support for this from others besides
you, I fine, I'll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would
again suggest that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of
compelling, coherent and operationally doable proposals rather than have the
sort of wide-ranging, multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position
statements to the last consultation such a Homeric odyssey.   

Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:

*The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and
we have one, Adam's self-nomination.

*Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.

*Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
drafting texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting
through the list, then nailing them down.

*Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.

Suggest we need some structured processes here.

Cheers,

Bill



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/a493c4f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Mon Apr 14 13:37:39 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:37:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804140959x6300a4e1h5ce321210d871a96@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <f65fb55e0804140959x6300a4e1h5ce321210d871a96@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48039663.20403@wzb.eu>

Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one, 
wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding 
people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and 
hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run 
away. Amen.

McTim wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
>>  Change,
>>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
>>  taken
>>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
>>  the
>>  > list.
>>
>>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
>>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
>>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
>>  remain so until we have another election.
> 
> Or a recall (according to the charter).
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 13:39:32 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:09:32 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <4803722A.3000301@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20080414173946.328736796B@smtp1.electricembers.net>


> Let me see if I understand -- two members of the self-attributed
> "technical community" (who by their definition would be curiously
> detached from the real world of business or government or civil society
> -- they are just "technical") are trying to depose Parm from his
> coordinator role on political grounds?? Or for just "writing too much"??
> Where are we going to here??

No problems, Carlos. Ousting attempts are normal in political contexts :).
And unlike the two protagonists I am very clear about the political nature
of my role and position, which cant but be so when the IGC itself as per its
charter is political. Parminder 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 8:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> Let me see if I understand -- two members of the self-attributed
> "technical community" (who by their definition would be curiously
> detached from the real world of business or government or civil society
> -- they are just "technical") are trying to depose Parm from his
> coordinator role on political grounds?? Or for just "writing too much"??
> Where are we going to here??
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> McTim wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> >> McTim [14/04/08 16:51 +0300]:
> >>
> >>
> >>> This is not even a bad caricature of what I have been expounding, it's
> >>> a plain falsehood.
> >>>
> >>> I DO tell you to trim your mails, but you never do.
> >>>
> >>> As Bill said, not interested in spending time on conversations not
> >>> conducted in good faith.
> >>>
> >>  I dont know about bad faith but there is a definite communication gap
> here,
> >>  and it is perhaps compounded by Parminder not being very aware of
> technical
> >>  PDP issues.
> >>
> >>  I would suggest that - entirely in the interest of consensus and
> meaning no
> >>  disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> Change,
> >>  he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
> taken
> >>  over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
> the
> >>  list.
> >
> > I support this idea.
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html says:
> >
> > Duties of Coordinators
> >
> > The first and most important duty of the coordinator(s) is to
> > facilitate the discussions and enable the members of the caucus to
> > reach consensus whenever possible.
> >
> > IMHO, discussions aren't being so much facilitated, as much as they
> > are being directed by  the coordinator's political philosophy, which
> > doesn't tolerate reality (or realpolitik).
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Carlos A. Afonso
> direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor)
> conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no 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  Mon Apr 14 13:45:17 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:15:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <48039663.20403@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080414174529.0FF94A6C86@smtp2.electricembers.net>


> Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> away. Amen.

Hi Jeanette 

That's rather ungratifying a reason for keeping me a coordinator :). On the
other hand, I can assure you I am nowhere close to running away. Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:08 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> away. Amen.
> 
> McTim wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> >>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> >>  Change,
> >>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
> >>  taken
> >>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
> >>  the
> >>  > list.
> >>
> >>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
> >>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
> >>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
> >>  remain so until we have another election.
> >
> > Or a recall (according to the charter).
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 14:08:47 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:38:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080414180910.5221AA6CA4@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Milton

Rights and markets are both important parts of the political economy of a
society, and there cannot be an either or. You know that any developed
country has a huge welfarist expenditure which is rights based. Do you
propose that it should be withdrawn?

The issue then is to recognize what aspects of the society are to be
governed by a rights based regime and what with a market exchanged based
regime. And many areas will be mixed areas, and elaborate political-economic
stratagems go into managing this mixture, at different levels for different
things. All these issues are a matter of political determination of  a
society, and this determination remains in  a dynamic flux as societies
change. We need to place the Internet in this complex political economy
matrix, and explore what factors are relevant to it at any given time, and
what's the state of these factors in different contexts. 

> Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back on
> the right to health care or education or some other good.

This exactly is where you are very wrong, in not recognizing what the
Internet means or may mean to developing societies. In ICTD activity we are
trying to transform access to (and participation in) health and education by
using the Internet. Now if this transformational role of Internet is proven
and recognized in enabling access to basic needs, which themselves are
recognized as rights, instead of the Internet competing for resources with
these needs, it can changes the context of 'rights or markets' political
economy consideration. It may mean that a society begins to consider
Internet as a right. It wouldn't be wrong to do so, would it.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; McTim
> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> > What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public good
> is
> > understood to be realized through the Internet being made available to
> ALL
> > within the community.
> >
> > How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured
> (by
> > the State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation,
> Public
> > Private Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter.
> 
> Oh but it does. There is this little thing called the budget constraint.
> 
> It means that society has many, many things that it wants and needs but
> perhaps not enough money in the treasury to get them all. So you have to
> choose.
> 
> Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back on
> the right to health care or education or some other good. Or it may mean
> restricting freedom of choice; in setting up subsidy schemes for the
> favored good, one can create a kind of economic protectionism or
> inappropriate restrictions on human behavior in order to preserve the
> subsidy or protect the institutions delivering the subsidy.
> 
> This is why I don't like it when people confuse _policy_ with _rights_.
> If you say, "we should have a policy of promoting Internet access," fine
> -- one can then enter into reasonable negotiations and budget
> allocations regarding how much of the state's or private actor's
> resources are to be committed to one goal versus another. And you don't
> lose sight of the question whether the policy actually succeeds in
> promoting internet access. But if one says one has a "right" to a
> service, the production and consumption of which inherently draws
> resources away from other things, then one cannot make a rational
> decision about relative levels of resource allocation. And the rights
> language also encourages one to forget about whether the policy used to
> achieve greater levels of access is effective and efficient. Just look
> at what you said above - "really doesn't matter" how you do it.
> 
> >
> > In a "Rights" based regime the
> > Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the
> > rights of private owners to dispose of their property as and how they
> > wish. This at least at the theoretical level has little to do with how
> 
> > the Internet "grows" etc.etc.
> 
> But it has everything to do with how the Internet grows. If the rights
> of private owners - who by the way probably comprise 80% or more of the
> Internet - to recoup investments in networks or internet services is
> regulated too much or completely undermined, then the Internet ceases to
> grow. And no amount of "rights" language on pieces of paper will make it
> grow.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Apr 14 14:24:26 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:24:26 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
References: <20080414174529.0FF94A6C86@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C26@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

BTW, if I remember correctly, we always had to co-chairs: YJ and me, Jenatte and Adama. And we had Parminder and Vittorio. Did Vittorio resign officially?
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Mo 14.04.2008 19:45
An: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet




> Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> away. Amen.

Hi Jeanette

That's rather ungratifying a reason for keeping me a coordinator :). On the
other hand, I can assure you I am nowhere close to running away. Parminder

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:08 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
> Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> away. Amen.
>
> McTim wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> >>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> >>  Change,
> >>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
> >>  taken
> >>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
> >>  the
> >>  > list.
> >>
> >>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
> >>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
> >>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
> >>  remain so until we have another election.
> >
> > Or a recall (according to the charter).
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 15:38:17 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:38:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
Message-ID: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>

If I may beg to differ with Bill, and agree with Parminder, that actuallyIGF is the perfect place for discussions of universal access as a policy/Internet governance first principle.

Certainly it is an important topic addressed elsewhere, particularly focusing on specific mechanism to enhance access in one domain or another. But considering its implications as a more or less new human right would seem an appropriate topic for a workshop at IGC 08. This view is implicit in much of what IGF, or IGP, or ICANN/ISOC/IETF for that matter, do. So shouldn't it be discussed aloud at IGC?

Lee


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 04/14/08 6:39 AM >>>
Hi,

I was going to follow Meryem�s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I�m unable to think of a
focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
conversation.

Michael,

Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder�s
elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It�s certainly an
important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
way to get around this would be to claim the right�s implied by
international human rights agreements, but I�m skeptical we�d get all that
far with this angle.

Parminder,

We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
*Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
activities of people you�ve not talked to, processes you weren�t involved
with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don�t be bummed if
people are not persuaded by it.
*Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
political activities you mention.
*Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
a damn about social empowerment etc.
*Again, I don�t know what �the present IG regime� means.  If you�re
referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
view of a broad range of actors and institutions.
*To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
cases where �structural imbalances� are thereby clearly identifiable,
countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
there may not be  �structural imbalances� requiring more than capacity
building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we�re talking
about, I wouldn�t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
previous one will delve deeper into this and I�m lining up speakers and
cosponsors.  

The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that�s a plenty full plate.

Best,

Bill 

On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Bill
>  
> I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
> but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
> Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
> which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And I
> take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now. Is
> it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
> regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is to a
> good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn�t meet even the
> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>  
>> >Hence, re: �Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
>> require different governance and policy >approaches,� nope, not me, I think
>> the issue is >misconstructed.
>  
> What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
> and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
> require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that you
> don�t agree to this proposition? That�s all is what I meant when I said
> �anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) �..
>  
>> >net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
>> broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
>> aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.
> 
> I have great problem with how �global digital divide� issue was interpreted by
> US, and probably form there taken to G-8�s meeting which gave birth to DOT
> Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP and
> other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and practice in
> developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving initial
> impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of the
> present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign roots,
> and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in telecom
> and other IT areas. Don�t want to go into further elaboration, but needed to
> mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and support�..
> So whether �tackling the global digital divide� really, and entirely,
> represented as you say �non-commercial aspects�  of the thinking that shaped
> present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
>  
> In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
> disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
> more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,  and
> not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which are
> increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
> developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
> basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
> regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
> recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
> interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
> similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
> knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in IG
> if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if so,
> what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
> interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
> dichotomy is as you say �false�?
>  
>> >I don�t believe there is �a� regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
>> there is no international regime governing >access,
>  
> Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
> your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right. If
> not, �there being no one regime� argument extends to dev agenda issue as well.
> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what �problems�
> and �issues� with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire your
> imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the structural
> problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don�t we do an IGC workshop on
> �dev agenda in IG�, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also
> mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC
> also have some views on it.
>  
> Parminder 
>  
> 
> 
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>  
> Hi Parminder,
> 
> There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
> on any one of them, but since you�re replying to me directly:
> 
> I don�t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was seen
> in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
> understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects, e.g.
> tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore�s
> people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
> organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and CS,
> and can say with absolute certainty that you�re offering a caricature of the
> thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the domestic
> level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the NII
> initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN launch
> (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part of their
> reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of the ITU).
> And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et al
> doesn�t define �how the net was seen�  in the US or anywhere else, it was one
> element in a much larger set of debates.
> 
> I don�t believe there is �a� regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
> there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and in
> Europe, regional) issue at present (we�ve been here before).  And per the
> above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it�s purely commercial to
> the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
> re: �Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
> different governance and policy approaches,� nope, not me, I think the issue
> is misconstructed.
> 
> Friendly disagreement, let�s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
> infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the problem
> to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws AND
> the jurisdiction ws AND the �internationalization� ws and on and on.  That
> said, if there�s lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine,
> I�ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would again suggest
> that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of compelling, coherent
> and operationally doable proposals rather than have the sort of wide-ranging,
> multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position statements to the last
> consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
> 
> *The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and we
> have one, Adam�s self-nomination.
> 
> *Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
> 
> *Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
> operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then drafting
> texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the
> list, then nailing them down.
> 
> *Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
> 
> Suggest we need some structured processes here.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 


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

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


From avri at psg.com  Mon Apr 14 15:40:10 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:40:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <5B014D72-6E34-40C5-A81D-D720A3D57E56@psg.com>


On 14 Apr 2008, at 13:02, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> because asynchronous
> text is the absolute worst medium for achieving consensus ever devised
> by man.


i might quibble about it being the worst medium known, but it  
certainly isn't very dynamic.

i might suggest using http://docs.google.com/ as an easy (just like  
using a word editor) free and open ... and somewhat better medium for  
working out consensus text (i believe i have used it successfully on  
several occasion in other groups at least as dynamic in opinion as  
this one.)

but since google is a private enterprise and thus anathema to many  
people, i won't suggest it because i don't want to get beat up for  
being a friend to the private sector.

if i were to have suggested it, then i would have suggested that those  
who wanted to actively work on such a doc could invite each other to  
partiapte - inviting anyone from the IGC that asked.  while the rest  
of us who intend to just watch could just watch.  and if one of the  
passive minority felt like commenting on the list on what we were  
watching, then one of those actively editing could, if so inclined,  
cnsider adding ur small suggestion to the text.

but as i say. i am not suggesting it to this group, but in the best of  
all possible worlds, i might have.

a.


PS.  as for an appeals team mechanism to force a recall vote for  
coordinator, i can't see us as being anywhere close to that state of  
affairs (assuming we even still have an appeals team since their terms  
were up with Vittorio's).


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 15:41:41 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:41:41 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080414180910.5221AA6CA4@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <03fe01c89e67$96395920$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Milton and all,

To attempt to bridge between Parminder, Bill, Milton and Karen on this...
Doesn't whether (say hypothetically) the Internet is understood as available
(e.g. a "governance regime") as a "Right" or available only through the
vagaries of the market underlie and at the least "influence" all (or most)
of the other IG issues?

If the answer to that question is yes then, and without engaging too much on
substance (however much fun and interesting it would be to do so), wouldn't
you agree that it is precisely this topic that Civil Society should be
introducing into the broader IG discussions?

MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 11:09 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Milton L Mueller'; 'Michael Gurstein';
'McTim'
Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


Milton

Rights and markets are both important parts of the political economy of a
society, and there cannot be an either or. You know that any developed
country has a huge welfarist expenditure which is rights based. Do you
propose that it should be withdrawn?

The issue then is to recognize what aspects of the society are to be
governed by a rights based regime and what with a market exchanged based
regime. And many areas will be mixed areas, and elaborate political-economic
stratagems go into managing this mixture, at different levels for different
things. All these issues are a matter of political determination of  a
society, and this determination remains in  a dynamic flux as societies
change. We need to place the Internet in this complex political economy
matrix, and explore what factors are relevant to it at any given time, and
what's the state of these factors in different contexts. 

> Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back
> on the right to health care or education or some other good.

This exactly is where you are very wrong, in not recognizing what the
Internet means or may mean to developing societies. In ICTD activity we are
trying to transform access to (and participation in) health and education by
using the Internet. Now if this transformational role of Internet is proven
and recognized in enabling access to basic needs, which themselves are
recognized as rights, instead of the Internet competing for resources with
these needs, it can changes the context of 'rights or markets' political
economy consideration. It may mean that a society begins to consider
Internet as a right. It wouldn't be wrong to do so, would it.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:57 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; McTim
> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> > What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public
> > good
> is
> > understood to be realized through the Internet being made available
> > to
> ALL
> > within the community.
> >
> > How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured
> (by
> > the State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation,
> Public
> > Private Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter.
> 
> Oh but it does. There is this little thing called the budget
> constraint.
> 
> It means that society has many, many things that it wants and needs
> but perhaps not enough money in the treasury to get them all. So you 
> have to choose.
> 
> Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back
> on the right to health care or education or some other good. Or it may 
> mean restricting freedom of choice; in setting up subsidy schemes for 
> the favored good, one can create a kind of economic protectionism or 
> inappropriate restrictions on human behavior in order to preserve the 
> subsidy or protect the institutions delivering the subsidy.
> 
> This is why I don't like it when people confuse _policy_ with
> _rights_. If you say, "we should have a policy of promoting Internet 
> access," fine
> -- one can then enter into reasonable negotiations and budget
> allocations regarding how much of the state's or private actor's
> resources are to be committed to one goal versus another. And you don't
> lose sight of the question whether the policy actually succeeds in
> promoting internet access. But if one says one has a "right" to a
> service, the production and consumption of which inherently draws
> resources away from other things, then one cannot make a rational
> decision about relative levels of resource allocation. And the rights
> language also encourages one to forget about whether the policy used to
> achieve greater levels of access is effective and efficient. Just look
> at what you said above - "really doesn't matter" how you do it.
> 
> >
> > In a "Rights" based regime the
> > Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the
> > rights of private owners to dispose of their property as and how 
> > they wish. This at least at the theoretical level has little to do 
> > with how
> 
> > the Internet "grows" etc.etc.
> 
> But it has everything to do with how the Internet grows. If the rights
> of private owners - who by the way probably comprise 80% or more of 
> the Internet - to recoup investments in networks or internet services 
> is regulated too much or completely undermined, then the Internet 
> ceases to grow. And no amount of "rights" language on pieces of paper 
> will make it grow.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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

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

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


From wsis at ngocongo.org  Mon Apr 14 15:47:41 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:47:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Multistakeholder implementation meetings of the WSIS
 Action Lines (UNESCO)
Message-ID: <200804141946.m3EJkai1017101@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Please find below some complementary information regarding UNESCO-lead
implementation meetings to WSIS.

Best, 

 

Ph

 

  _____  

De : UNESCO's Communication and Information Sector [mailto:ci at unesco.org] 
Envoyé : lundi, 14. avril 2008 18:31
À : philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Objet : Multistakeholder Consultation Meetings for the implementation of the
WSIS Action Lines

 

Dear Madam, Sir 

UNESCO has the pleasure to invite you to participate in the Multistakeholder
Consultation Meetings for the implementation of the WSIS Action Lines in
Geneva, Switzerland, from 19 to 23 May 2008. 

The meetings will be an important occasion to enhance multistakeholder
participation in the implementation of Action Lines as recommended in the
Tunis Agenda for the Information Society. 
 
UNESCO is organizing the following facilitation meetings:


Date

Time

Action line

Venue


19 May

3-5 pm

C3 Access to information and knowledge

Room C2, Montbrillant Building, ITU


20 May

2.30-5.30 pm

C8 Cultural diversity

Room C2, Montbrillant Building, ITU


21 May

10 am-1 pm

C9 Media

Room C1, Montbrillant Building, ITU


21 May

3-5pm

C7 e-science

Room C2 Montbrillant Building, ITU


21 May

3-5 pm

C10 Ethical dimensions of the Information Society

Room C1, Montbrillant Building, ITU


22 May

3-5 pm

C7 e-learning

Room A, Montbrillant Building, ITU

The main objectives of the meetings are to present concrete projects and
initiatives that are aimed at implementing the action lines, to initiate
joint ventures between stakeholders, and to promote the implementation of
the WSIS goals.

In order to stimulate the discussion, and to have a clearer idea of the
different items on the agenda prior to the meetings, UNESCO invites you to
join the discussion forum for the Action Line implementation at:

http://www.unesco.org/webworld/en/forum-wsis
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1294&e=MTE2MzEx&l=-http--
www.unesco.org/webworld/en/forum-wsis> 

For your information you can find an updated calendar of all WSIS-related
events at:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?year=2008
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='
alf'&subtype=0> &month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0

and an online registration for the consultation meetings is accessible at: 

www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2008.html
<http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1294&e=MTE2MzEx&l=-http--
www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster2008.html> 

 I look forward to your participation in the events in Geneva.

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

Abdul Waheed Khan 


  <http://www.unesco-ci.org/newsletter/lt/t_go.php?i=1294&e=MTE2MzEx&l=open>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/68bc81c9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Mon Apr 14 15:57:28 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:57:28 +0200
Subject: [governance] Action Line Facilitation Meetings of WSIS, Geneva, 22
 May 2008 (UN-DESA)
Message-ID: <200804141956.m3EJuNZt022956@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

Find attached some complementary information on Action Line Facilitation
meetings moderated by UN-DESA (AL- C1, AL- C7 and AL- C11).

Best regards, 

Ph

Philippe Dam
CONGO - Information Society &
Human Rights Coordinator
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail: philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website: www.ngocongo.org 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Adriana Ribeiro [mailto:ribeiroa at un.org] De la part de Haiyan Qian
Envoyé : mardi, 8. avril 2008 17:44
À : Action Line Facilitation Meetings of WSIS
Objet : Action Line Facilitation Meetings of WSIS, Geneva, 22 May 2008


Dear All,

   Pursuant to the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, UNDESA is
   playing a facilitating role for the implementation of specific Action
   Lines of the WSIS Plan of Action.

   In this context, I am pleased to invite you to participate in the
   following Action Line Facilitation Meetings organized by UNDESA that
   will be held during the cluster of WSIS-related events from 13 to 23 May
   2008 in Geneva:



   - Third Facilitation Meeting on Action Line C1 - The role of public
   governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for
   development, 22 May 2008 (10:00 AM-1:00 PM), Room C1, ITU Headquarters,
   Geneva.

   - Third Facilitation Meeting on Action Line C7 – ICT Applications –
   E-government,  22 May 2008 (2:00 PM-4:00 PM), Room C1, ITU Headquarters,
   Geneva.

   - Third Facilitation Meeting on Action Line C11 – International and
   Regional Cooperation,  22 May 2008 (4:00 PM-6:00 PM), Room C1, ITU
   Headquarters, Geneva.

   Please find attached the drafted Agenda of the Meetings.
(See attached file: Agenda WSIS Third Facilitation Meetings
C1-C7eGov-C11.doc)

   For the updated Agenda and for further information on the meetings and
   on the registration/badge request process, please visit our website:
   http://www.unpan.org/post-WSIS-C1-C7home.asp.

   Please note that due to limited resources, the United Nations would not
   be able to fund your participation. To confirm your interest in
   participating, please email us at ubaldi at un.org or cherkasov at un.org.

   I take this opportunity to send my highest regards and look forward to
   receiving your positive reply.

   Sincerely yours,

   Haiyan Qian
(Embedded image moved to file: pic49004.gif)

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: Agenda WSIS Third Facilitation Meetings C1-C7eGov-C11.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 104960 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/6d698d68/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pic49004.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 16431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/6d698d68/attachment.gif>

From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Apr 14 16:04:45 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:04:45 -0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net>
Message-ID: <4803B8DD.9060801@rits.org.br>

Sorry, way out of line, Suresh & McTim (wow, sounds like a good name for 
a country music duo!).

The debates in this list are free, and there is no clause which says 
coordnators should not participate in the debate. Are we voting on 
something, or so far just debating? Has any of the current coordinators 
proposed that certain positions should be banned from the list? To the 
contrary. Parminder never runs from a debate (great quality, in my 
opinion), and this seems to strongly annoy a few (very few) people in 
this list.

I tend to think that, if this kind of "technical community" cannot 
tolerate political debate (mind you, this is a *civil society* caucus!), 
it would be better off in other lists -- perhaps spending your time in 
writing an RFC on something like, say, haikus? The list rules do not say 
this explicitly, but thou shalt not be prevented from leaving once in...

Amazing, a quibble is forced by some to escalate, and soon you start to 
imagine that a multitude of people in this caucus are about to join in 
this "movement". So much for egos...

Maybe a reverse result of this escalation will be the requirement, in 
order to be in this caucus, for the techies to join a 101 course in 
Theory of The State, another in ... etc

As to being an observer with strong opinions, fascinating oxymoron...

fraternal regards

--c.a.

Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> Its not a coup, Milton. And I personally don't care who coordinates this,
> and don't have an ax to grind here - beyond being an external observer.
>  
> My opinion though is that Parminder doesn't seem to be achieving consensus
> here. And perhaps the best way to get consensus might be someone else in
> this role.
> 
> Please see my reply to Meryem for the rest.
> 
> 	srs
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 10:20 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
>> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
>>> disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
>> Change,
>>> he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination be
>> taken
>>> over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others on
>> the
>>> list.
>> I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
>> highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over a
>> workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
>> remain so until we have another election. If you don't like his
>> performance you can vote against him at that time, if he runs again. Or
>> put yourself up as a candidate.
>>
>> --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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 16:10:31 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:10:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Status report on
Message-ID: <s8038215.062@gwia203.syr.edu>

Hi,

I understand YJ Park will be nominated by others. I'm also pleased to
report she is very close to done with her dissertation, so expect her to
have the time and interest to serve if selected. 

I therefore nominate her for consideration by the IGC. 

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> b.schombe at gmail.com 04/14/08 9:12 AM >>>
very difficult to involve women without to have their agreement, in
africa particulary.

Baudouin

2008/4/14, tatiw at riseup.net <tatiw at riseup.net>:
> more women please!
>
> > Dear IGC Caucus:
> >
> > As of  April 14, 08 - 00:30 Geneva Time (the deadline for
submissions)
> > -  32 Candidates statements and/or expression of interest have been
> > submitted to the IGC  nominating committee.
> >
> > Breakdown:
> >
> > 1. By region
> >
> > Africa - 8, 25%
> > Asia Pacific - 9, 28.125 %
> > Europe - 5, 15.625%
> > LAC - 5, 15.625%
> > North America - 5, 15.625%
> >
> > 2. By Gender
> >
> > Male - 25, 78.125 %
> > Female - 7, 21.875 %
> >
> >
> > Robert Guerra
> > IGC 08 Nomcom Chair
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
TEL:00243998983491
EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Apr 14 16:25:33 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 22:25:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C4298A5D.10E42%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Lee,

Actually, you are not disagreeing with me.  I said, in response to Michael,
that "The only obvious way to get around this would be to claim the right��s
implied by international human rights agreements."  One could argue that the
UDHR, CCPR, CESCR and other instruments provide a basis for asserting that
there is a right whether construed narrowly as access to infrastructure and
services or more broadly per Michael addendum.  But as I added, I��m
skeptical we��d get all that far with this angle, at least with OECD
governments, the private sector, etc. which have resisted expansive readings
of economic and social rights as well as third generation rights, e.g. to
peace, development, and such, and would probably say we're trying to redo
the communications rights battles etc.  Of course, if that doesn't matter,
then it's not a deterrent.

Alternatively, one could argue not that there are global governance
mechanisms presently, but that there should be.  Either formulation would
get away from proposing purely national/regional policies on universal
access as appropriate ws foci, which is part of what has detracted from
efforts to get IGF to focus on the IG issues and opened the way to
anything-goes Internet and society formulations.

Cheers,

Bill

On 4/14/08 9:38 PM, "Lee McKnight" <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> If I may beg to differ with Bill, and agree with Parminder, that actuallyIGF
> is the perfect place for discussions of universal access as a policy/Internet
> governance first principle.
> 
> Certainly it is an important topic addressed elsewhere, particularly focusing
> on specific mechanism to enhance access in one domain or another. But
> considering its implications as a more or less new human right would seem an
> appropriate topic for a workshop at IGC 08. This view is implicit in much of
> what IGF, or IGP, or ICANN/ISOC/IETF for that matter, do. So shouldn't it be
> discussed aloud at IGC?
> 
> Lee
> 
> 
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 04/14/08 6:39 AM >>>
> Hi,
> 
> I was going to follow Meryem��s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I��m unable to think of a
> focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
> conversation.
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder��s
> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It��s certainly an
> important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
> The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
> given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
> policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
> rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
> would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
> GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
> various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
> commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
> rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
> position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
> included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
> around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
> way to get around this would be to claim the right��s implied by
> international human rights agreements, but I��m skeptical we��d get all that
> far with this angle.
> 
> Parminder,
> 
> We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
> this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
> discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
> plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
> *Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
> activities of people you��ve not talked to, processes you weren��t involved
> with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
> orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don��t be bummed if
> people are not persuaded by it.
> *Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
> intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
> political activities you mention.
> *Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
> Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
> engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
> some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
> should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
> decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
> a damn about social empowerment etc.
> *Again, I don��t know what ��the present IG regime�� means.  If you��re
> referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
> has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
> push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
> view of a broad range of actors and institutions.
> *To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
> intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
> outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
> cases where �structural imbalances�� are thereby clearly identifiable,
> countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
> difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
> there may not be  �structural imbalances�� requiring more than capacity
> building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we��re talking
> about, I wouldn��t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
> and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
> ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
> previous one will delve deeper into this and I��m lining up speakers and
> cosponsors.  
> 
> The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
> caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
> here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
> consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
> mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that��s a plenty full plate.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill 
> 
> On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
>> Bill
>>  
>> I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those days,
>> but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my assertion.
>> Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and background
>> which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And I
>> take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now.
>> Is
>> it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
>> regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is to
>> a
>> good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn��t meet even the
>> canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
>>  
>>>> Hence, re: ��Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
>>> require different governance and policy >approaches,�� nope, not me, I think
>>> the issue is >misconstructed.
>>  
>> What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
>> and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
>> require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
>> you
>> don��t agree to this proposition? That��s all is what I meant when I said
>> �anyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) �..
>>  
>>>> net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
>>> broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
>>> aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.
>> 
>> I have great problem with how �global digital divide�� issue was interpreted
>> by
>> US, and probably form there taken to G-8��s meeting which gave birth to DOT
>> Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP and
>> other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and practice in
>> developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving initial
>> impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of the
>> present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign roots,
>> and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in telecom
>> and other IT areas. Don��t want to go into further elaboration, but needed to
>> mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and support�..
>> So whether �tackling the global digital divide�� really, and entirely,
>> represented as you say �non-commercial aspects��  of the thinking that shaped
>> present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
>>  
>> In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
>> disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
>> more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,  and
>> not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which are
>> increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
>> developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is the
>> basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
>> regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
>> recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
>> interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
>> similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
>> knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in IG
>> if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if so,
>> what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
>> interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
>> dichotomy is as you say �false��?
>>  
>>>> I don��t believe there is ��a�� regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
>>> there is no international regime governing >access,
>>  
>> Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I understand
>> your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right. If
>> not, �there being no one regime�� argument extends to dev agenda issue as
>> well.
>> And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what �problems��
>> and �issues�� with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire your
>> imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the structural
>> problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don��t we do an IGC workshop on
>> �dev agenda in IG��, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also
>> mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC
>> also have some views on it.
>>  
>> Parminder 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
>> To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
>>  
>> Hi Parminder,
>> 
>> There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much juice
>> on any one of them, but since you��re replying to me directly:
>> 
>> I don��t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
>> seen
>> in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
>> understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
>> e.g.
>> tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore��s
>> people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
>> organized to build consensus across branches of government, business, and CS,
>> and can say with absolute certainty that you��re offering a caricature of the
>> thinking and efforts. The same multidimensionality was evident at the
>> domestic
>> level and very much reflected in the enormous debates around the NII
>> initiative, the 1996 Telecom Act, and even the GEC initiative and ICANN
>> launch
>> (seriously---Magaziner and company were explicit on this, it was part of
>> their
>> reasoning for building something to keep names and numbers out of the ITU).
>> And anyway how the WH framed things in certain contexts to mobilize ITAA et
>> al
>> doesn��t define ��how the net was seen��  in the US or anywhere else, it was one
>> element in a much larger set of debates.
>> 
>> I don��t believe there is ��a�� regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
>> there is no international regime governing access, a largely national (and in
>> Europe, regional) issue at present (we��ve been here before).  And per the
>> above, if there was such a regime, the notion that it��s purely commercial to
>> the exclusion of the referenced broader range is a false dichotomy.  Hence,
>> re: ��Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity require
>> different governance and policy approaches,�� nope, not me, I think the issue
>> is misconstructed.
>> 
>> Friendly disagreement, let��s agree to disagree rather than debating it ad
>> infinitum.  I would not support proposing an IGC ws on this unless the
>> problem
>> to be addressed was clarified AND the ws you want on EC AND the mandate ws
>> AND
>> the jurisdiction ws AND the ��internationalization�� ws and on and on.  That
>> said, if there��s lots of support for this from others besides you, I fine,
>> I��ll roll with whatever people can actually agree on. I would again suggest
>> that with two weeks left we try to agree a small set of compelling, coherent
>> and operationally doable proposals rather than have the sort of wide-ranging,
>> multiple discussions that made agreeing a few position statements to the last
>> consultation such a Homeric odyssey.
>> 
>> Unless I am mistaken, we now have on the table:
>> 
>> *The nomcom thing, and if memory serves, nominations are due by today, and we
>> have one, Adam��s self-nomination.
>> 
>> *Enhanced cooperation and responding to Sha.
>> 
>> *Narrowing the range of workshop ideas to a consensually supported and
>> operationally viable set, getting groups organized around these, then
>> drafting
>> texts and identifying potential speakers and cosponsors, vetting through the
>> list, then nailing them down.
>> 
>> *Any interventions IGC might want to make at the May consultation.
>> 
>> Suggest we need some structured processes here.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Bill




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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Apr 14 17:06:24 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:06:24 +1000
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <015c01c89e73$6c3501e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>

A fundamental question -

Does a person who has no Internet access enjoy the same opportunities in
global society as those who do?



Ian Peter
(the last living NWICO fan...)

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 14/04/2008
09:26
 

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 17:27:58 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:27:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <4803B8DD.9060801@rits.org.br>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net> <4803B8DD.9060801@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804141427j7a7e5093x85f76b0200081aeb@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:04 PM, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
> Sorry, way out of line, Suresh & McTim (wow, sounds like a good name for a
> country music duo!).
>
>  The debates in this list are free, and there is no clause which says
> coordnators should not participate in the debate.

I have not espoused the notion that they should not, rather that their
opinions are only one of many.

 Are we voting on
> something, or so far just debating? Has any of the current coordinators
> proposed that certain positions should be banned from the list?

Where did this question come from? no one has espoused this position IIRC.


To the
> contrary. Parminder never runs from a debate (great quality, in my opinion),
> and this seems to strongly annoy a few (very few) people in this list.

It is not the debate that is the problem, rather the "political"
position of the coordinator.  A coordinator of this list should IMHO,
be the "honest broker in the room", and not a person whose POV must,
it seems, win out, despite reality suggesting otherwise.

A coordinator must have opinions, naturally, but these must not get in
the way of the work of the group.  Judging by the number of times that
our current coordinator has been scolded by our former coordinators, I
think that it's not just 2 who share this view.


>
>  I tend to think that, if this kind of "technical community" cannot tolerate
> political debate (mind you, this is a *civil society* caucus!), it would be
> better off in other lists -- perhaps spending your time in writing an RFC on
> something like, say, haikus? The list rules do not say this explicitly, but
> thou shalt not be prevented from leaving once in...
>
>  Amazing, a quibble is forced by some to escalate, and soon you start to
> imagine that a multitude of people in this caucus are about to join in this
> "movement". So much for egos...

This is your imagination at work amigo, not mine.  I merely voiced my
opinion.  Is that banned now as well?  If so, I shall take you up on
your kind invitation.

-- 
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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Mon Apr 14 17:52:43 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 14 Apr 2008 21:52:43 -0000
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <015c01c89e73$6c3501e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <20080414215243.30245.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>A fundamental question -

>Does a person who has no Internet access enjoy the same opportunities
>in global society as those who do?

Does a person who has no telephone enjoy the same opportunities in
global society as those who do?

Does a person who has no automobile enjoy the same opportunities in
global society as those who do?

Does a person who has no degree from Harvard, Cambridge, or ENA enjoy
the same opportunities in global society as those who do?

Does a person who has no employer paid five week vacation enjoy the
same opportunities in global society as those who do?

R's,
John
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 14 18:02:11 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:02:11 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [ox-en] Study Reports on Debian Governance,
 Social Organization
Message-ID: <043b01c89e7b$31adf830$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

May be of interest for those with a more academic interest in how we govern
ourselves.

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-list-en at oekonux.org [mailto:owner-list-en at oekonux.org] On Behalf
Of Anivar Aravind
Sent: April 14, 2008 11:35 AM
To: list-en at oekonux.org
Subject: [ox-en] Study Reports on Debian Governance, Social Organization


"Two academic management researchers, Siobhán O'Mahony and Fabrizion 
Ferraro, performed a detailed scientific study about Debian Project 
governance and social organization from the management perspective. How 
a big non-commercial non-paying community evolved and actually produces 
some of the most respectable Operating Systems and applications packages 
available? Organizations without a consensual basis of authority lack an 
important condition necessary for their survival. Those with directly 
democratic forms of participation do not tend to scale well and are 
noted for their difficulty managing complexity and decision-making — all 
of which can hasten their demise. The Debian Project community designed 
and evolved a solid governance system since 1993 able to stablish shared 
conceptions of formal authority, leadership and meritocracy, limited by 
defined democratic adaptive mechanisms."

http://www.techforce.com.br/index.php/news/linux_blog/scientific_study_about
_debian_governance_and_organization
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt at oekonux.de

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

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


From ginger at paque.net  Mon Apr 14 18:03:46 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:33:46 -0430
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
References: <015c01c89e73$6c3501e0$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <012301c89e7b$71c17910$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

Is this a trick question? The same opportunities?

A resounding no, for reasons that seem too obvious to bother enumerating.

On the other hand, it is possible that a person who has NO Internet access also enjoys some different opportunities, even if she does not have as many. For instance, lower stress level in some ways? Possibility of a rich and productive local society?


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ian Peter 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:36 PM
  Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


  A fundamental question -

  Does a person who has no Internet access enjoy the same opportunities in
  global society as those who do?



  Ian Peter
  (the last living NWICO fan...)

  No virus found in this outgoing message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 14/04/2008
  09:26
   

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

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080414/bcda5419/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Apr 14 21:54:44 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:54:44 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C429010A.10DBD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <20080414130217.90A11A6C5A@smtp2.electricembers.net> <f65fb55e0804140651g27435f74y95c4a1239e9f9035@mail.gmail.com> <20080414140017.GA23704@hserus.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD1@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00b301c89e4f$fb671160$f2353420$@net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD4@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080415015444.GA8634@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [14/04/08 13:02 -0400]:
>> Its not a coup, Milton. 
>
>No. An attempted one. 

About as attempted as expressing an opinion that syracuse is wasting their
money giving you tenure to write propaganda masquerading as "position
papers", but I digress..

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr 14 23:08:00 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:08:00 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <048a01c89ea6$22b38810$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Milton, 

To give a flavour of a debate yet to come...

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: April 14, 2008 10:27 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; McTim
Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> What a "Right to the Internet" does is to establish that a public good
is
> understood to be realized through the Internet being made available to
ALL
> within the community.
> 
> How it is delivered or how this availablilty is practically ensured
(by
> the State; by the private sector through incentives, regulation,
Public
> Private Partnerships; NGO's; or other) really doesn't matter.

Oh but it does. There is this little thing called the budget constraint.

It means that society has many, many things that it wants and needs but
perhaps not enough money in the treasury to get them all. So you have to
choose. 

BUT AS YOU KNOW STATES HAVE MULTIPLE WAYS OF ENSURING THAT THINGS GET DONE
OF WHICH DIRECT EXPENDITURE OF MONEY FROM THE TREASURY IS ONLY
ONE--REGULATION, TAX ABATEMENTS, DIRECTED CONTRACTS, AND SO ON AND SO ON...
I KNOW THAT THESE OFFEND THE NEO-LIB SENSIBILITIES BUT WHAT THE HECK...


Articulating a right to Internet in that case could mean cutting back on the
right to health care or education or some other good. Or it may mean
restricting freedom of choice; in setting up subsidy schemes for the favored
good, one can create a kind of economic protectionism or inappropriate
restrictions on human behavior in order to preserve the subsidy or protect
the institutions delivering the subsidy. 

AS I SAID WHAT THE HECK... "ECONOMIC PROTECTIONISM" (I.E. LOOKING AFTER
ONE'S OWN NATIONAL, COMMUNITY ETC. INTERESTS AHEAD OF KOWTOWING TO ABSTRACT
ECONOMIC THEORIES) OR "INAPPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS ON HUMAN BEHAVIOUR" (I.E.
REGULATING CORPORATE BEHAVIOUR SO AS TO ENSURE THE GENERAL GOOD) OR
"PROTECTING INSTITUTIONS" (I.E. MAINTAINING DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE TOOLS
THAT CAN BE USED TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL GOOD) SEEM TO ME TO BE VERY GOOD
IDEAS IN ANY UNIVERSE WHERE THE MARKET IS ONLY ONE AMONG MANY TOOLS FOR
PURSUING THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE GREATEST NUMBER...    


This is why I don't like it when people confuse _policy_ with _rights_. 

I THINK THE CONFUSION BETWEEN POLICY AND IDEOLOGY IS EVEN MORE PERNICIOUS...


If you say, "we should have a policy of promoting Internet access," fine
-- one can then enter into reasonable negotiations and budget allocations
regarding how much of the state's or private actor's resources are to be
committed to one goal versus another. And you don't lose sight of the
question whether the policy actually succeeds in promoting internet access.
But if one says one has a "right" to a service, the production and
consumption of which inherently draws resources away from other things, then
one cannot make a rational decision about relative levels of resource
allocation. And the rights language also encourages one to forget about
whether the policy used to achieve greater levels of access is effective and
efficient. Just look at what you said above - "really doesn't matter" how
you do it. 

ISSUES OF RIGHTS ARE AS YOU WELL KNOW, NORMATIVE... THE BALANCING (OR
NEGOTIATION) OF RIGHTS IS ALSO NORMATIVE... IN A SANE WORLD WE DON'T BUY AND
SELL RIGHTS, RATHER WE ENACT THEM AND THEN WE UNDERTAKE THE FINANCIAL AND
POLICY PLANNING AND COST BENEFITS AND RISK ANALYSES AROUND FIGURING OUT HOW
TO IMPLEMENT THEM... SEE ABOVE...

> 
> In a "Rights" based regime the
> Right of the State to support measures for the public good trump the 
> rights of private owners to dispose of their property as and how they 
> wish. This at least at the theoretical level has little to do with how

> the Internet "grows" etc.etc.

But it has everything to do with how the Internet grows. If the rights of
private owners - who by the way probably comprise 80% or more of the
Internet - to recoup investments in networks or internet services is
regulated too much or completely undermined, then the Internet ceases to
grow. And no amount of "rights" language on pieces of paper will make it
grow. 

ACTUALLY THAT'S NOT TRUE... THE INTERNET SINCE IT IS SO ATTRACTIVE FROM A
MARKET PERSPECTIVE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO GROW... AND THERE IS NO
NEED FOR "RIGHTS" TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO FOR EXAMPLE ARE ABLE TO PAY OR ARE IN
LOCATIONS WHERE, BECAUSE OF POPULATION DENSITY OR VALUE OF THE CUSTOMER BASE
WILL HAVE READY AND LOW COST ACCESS. HOWEVER, AT THE MARGINS I.E. THOSE WHO
CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY OR WHERE THE MARKET DOESN'T SEE MUCH VALUE IN PROVIDING
A SUPPLY AT A REASONABLE COST IS WHERE "RIGHTS" (ON PAPER OR WHEREVER)
BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHERE THE INTERNET CAN AND SHOULD BE "MADE"
TO GROW.

MG

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 03:36:21 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:36:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240811c429f8e09b33@[192.168.28.206]>

>If I may beg to differ with Bill, and agree with Parminder, that 
>actuallyIGF is the perfect place for discussions of universal access 
>as a policy/Internet governance first principle.
>
>Certainly it is an important topic addressed elsewhere, particularly 
>focusing on specific mechanism to enhance access in one domain or 
>another. But considering its implications as a more or less new 
>human right would seem an appropriate topic for a workshop at IGC 
>08. This view is implicit in much of what IGF, or IGP, or 
>ICANN/ISOC/IETF for that matter, do


<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3271.txt>, The Internet is for 
Everyone, April 2002, V. Cerf

I believe "Internet is for Everyone"  is still ISOC's mantra. 
Perhaps they might be interested in a discussion of what it means 
from a policy perspective?

Adam


>. So shouldn't it be discussed aloud at IGC?
>
>Lee
>
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>>>  william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 04/14/08 6:39 AM >>>
>Hi,
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 03:41:01 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:11:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
Message-ID: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Hi All

 

Here is where we stand on possible IGC sponsored workshops for IGF, Hyd.

 

We have 4 topics under direct consideration. The titles are still loosely
worded and subject to finalization within working groups.

 

1.	Role and mandate of the IGF
2.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
3.	Internationalization  
4.	a rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG 

 

We will be forming working groups for each topic for further development. He
listing of these topics here is tentative, and does in no way represent a
final list. Discussion can meanwhile go on on this list as to which workshop
proposals should actually go. The WGs will enable us to do simultaneous work
on developing proposals and also if needed clarifying about their intent and
content as these discussions take place. 

 

Workshop on 'Role and mandate of the IGF'

 

Pleas volunteer to convene the working group for this, as well to
participate in the wg. I especially welcome participation of those who were
not there on this workshop the last time around. 

 

Workshop on 'trans-boundary jurisdiction issues'

 

Bret has agreed to convene this wg, and it is already functioning with
membership of Meryem, Bill and Ian. Others may join

 

Workshop on 'Internationalization' 

 

I understand that IGP may propose that a workshop that they intend to do on
post-JPA arrangement can fill in this slot of 'internationalisation', since
in any case not many ideas have come forward on this subject from the list.
I think IGP group developing the proposal will not be averse to take in some
IGC members interested in this subject on to the working group developing
this proposal, and therefore it can be a joint IGP, IGC proposal. 

 

Workshop on 'A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG'

 

I invite Michael Gurstein or Karen to convene a wg for this.  Other may
join. Karen has indicated APC's support (which I understand as
co-sponsorship) for this workshop.

 

I repeat, this is not a finalized list, but only a proposed one, and members
are welcome to contribute their views. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/e0c77f57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 04:00:42 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:30:42 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>

>We have 4 topics under direct consideration.

 

In addition, or as a replacement, since this is still a tentative list,
anyone who wants to propose a workshop on the 4 themes IGC suggested for the
IGF, Hyd, or seeks IGC's co-sponsorship on a workshop on these themes may do
so.

 

 If we wanted them discussed as themes for IGF, it looks pretty obvious we
would have interest in them as wg themes as well, subject to limitations of
time and resources. But yes we will have to keep the total number under
control and 3 or 4 looks a good enough number for direct IGF sponsorship. We
can partner in a few more. 

 

These themes that we suggested for IGF, Hyd, for the Feb consultations by
MAG are

 

1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
the Status of It

 

2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

 

3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

 

4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

 

Parminder 

  

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:11 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops

 

Hi All

 

Here is where we stand on possible IGC sponsored workshops for IGF, Hyd.

 

We have 4 topics under direct consideration. The titles are still loosely
worded and subject to finalization within working groups.

 

1.	Role and mandate of the IGF
2.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
3.	Internationalization  
4.	a rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG 

 

We will be forming working groups for each topic for further development. He
listing of these topics here is tentative, and does in no way represent a
final list. Discussion can meanwhile go on on this list as to which workshop
proposals should actually go. The WGs will enable us to do simultaneous work
on developing proposals and also if needed clarifying about their intent and
content as these discussions take place. 

 

Workshop on 'Role and mandate of the IGF'

 

Pleas volunteer to convene the working group for this, as well to
participate in the wg. I especially welcome participation of those who were
not there on this workshop the last time around. 

 

Workshop on 'trans-boundary jurisdiction issues'

 

Bret has agreed to convene this wg, and it is already functioning with
membership of Meryem, Bill and Ian. Others may join

 

Workshop on 'Internationalization' 

 

I understand that IGP may propose that a workshop that they intend to do on
post-JPA arrangement can fill in this slot of 'internationalisation', since
in any case not many ideas have come forward on this subject from the list.
I think IGP group developing the proposal will not be averse to take in some
IGC members interested in this subject on to the working group developing
this proposal, and therefore it can be a joint IGP, IGC proposal. 

 

Workshop on 'A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG'

 

I invite Michael Gurstein or Karen to convene a wg for this.  Other may
join. Karen has indicated APC's support (which I understand as
co-sponsorship) for this workshop.

 

I repeat, this is not a finalized list, but only a proposed one, and members
are welcome to contribute their views. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/1e95c0b9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 05:06:10 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C26@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>



Wolfgang

As a practice we shd and follow the principle that old appointments stay
till new ones are in place. There are admin problems, and associated
problems of adequate dynamism of the group, which does delay appointments.
But we are in a formative period and should accept this looseness/
flexibility to the extent this in inevitable.

So, Vittorio is still a co-coordinator, though I can understand his
reluctance of doing much beyond an announced period of end of coordinator
ship which thought the charter says should end around June, we find it more
convenient to end it with the annual IGF (though never formally decided, so
open to comments).

The main problem with voting for new coordinator to replace Vittorio has
been (1) non availability of online voting system used the last time, which
now has been solved (2) the problem, which I have tried to discuss here
earlier, of who is qualified as a voter.

The IGC charter says membership consists of those who have endorsed the
charter. Now, we have a list of those who voted in the charter vote, but
still not the names of those 3 who voted against the charter at that time.
So we really do not have the list of charter endorsees. Those who would have
joined IGC later may never have considered the option, may not know if it,
of endorsing the charter. 

Though in the case of a few scores who joined after I sent out an invite
earlier this year, I clearly asked them about charter endorsement, and we
have a separate list of those among them who have endorsed the charter. But
they all in any case are still not eligible to vote.

As for the situation with the last elections, I quote my email of 24th
March, also enclosed, where I had solicited members views on the voting
rights issue.

"The ballot for the co-coordinator election of 2006 carried a proviso that
"by voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society participant
of the Internet Governance Caucus""

"I am trying to obtain the full list of those who voted in this election.
However I still wonder if an affirmation, that too only by implication and
not as a forthright statement, of being a 'CS participant of IGC' itself can
mean that one has endorsed the charter. It is likely that someone who does
enter into discussion on the list, but does not mean to endorse the charter
can say yes to this proviso and proceed to vote. And not be dishonest or
untruthful in doing so."

(ends)

So, what I now propose for the coordinator elections to send an email to all
those on the IGC since exactly 2 months from with something like

"This is to prepare a voting list for the election of co-coordinator of IGC.
The charter of the IGC at
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html lays down that the
membership of IG consists of those who have endorsed the IGC charter. If you
endorse the IGC charter pleas cut paste the following lines and reply to
this email.

"I have read the IGC charter at .... and endorse it". With your full name
appended to this.

We will prepare a voting list of all who reply in say 10 days, and a ballot
will be sent to all of them and they given a week to vote.

As you know we have two candidates, David Goldstein and Ian Peter.

Please comment within the next 4 days if this process is fine with you. Also
give your suggestions etc. Avri has offered to help me with this process,
and we will commence it sometime next week. 

Parminder 

Avri - on your email on appeals committee, we will put one together after
this election, but as I said till a new one comes in we still go to the old
one for all purposes, including coordinator recall, and that it stays live. 




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> BTW, if I remember correctly, we always had to co-chairs: YJ and me,
> Jenatte and Adama. And we had Parminder and Vittorio. Did Vittorio resign
> officially?
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Gesendet: Mo 14.04.2008 19:45
> An: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> > wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> > people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> > hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> > away. Amen.
> 
> Hi Jeanette
> 
> That's rather ungratifying a reason for keeping me a coordinator :). On
> the
> other hand, I can assure you I am nowhere close to running away. Parminder
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:08 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> >
> > Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> > wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> > people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> > hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> > away. Amen.
> >
> > McTim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> > >>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> > >>  Change,
> > >>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination
> be
> > >>  taken
> > >>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others
> on
> > >>  the
> > >>  > list.
> > >>
> > >>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
> > >>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over
> a
> > >>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
> > >>  remain so until we have another election.
> > >
> > > Or a recall (according to the charter).
> > >
> > >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:35:15 +0530
Size: 15656
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/e61f7ae0/attachment.eml>

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 15 05:24:17 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:24:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] AW: coordinator elections
References: <0JZC00IFZZZE9T@mail.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C36@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Parminder
 
it helps and fine with me. 
 
I propose to look for another strong woman as the co-chair / co-coordinator if Vittorio resigns, butr we have certainly go through a process which would give the elected person the legitimicy she/he needs.
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Di 15.04.2008 11:06
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
Betreff: coordinator elections





Wolfgang

As a practice we shd and follow the principle that old appointments stay
till new ones are in place. There are admin problems, and associated
problems of adequate dynamism of the group, which does delay appointments.
But we are in a formative period and should accept this looseness/
flexibility to the extent this in inevitable.

So, Vittorio is still a co-coordinator, though I can understand his
reluctance of doing much beyond an announced period of end of coordinator
ship which thought the charter says should end around June, we find it more
convenient to end it with the annual IGF (though never formally decided, so
open to comments).

The main problem with voting for new coordinator to replace Vittorio has
been (1) non availability of online voting system used the last time, which
now has been solved (2) the problem, which I have tried to discuss here
earlier, of who is qualified as a voter.

The IGC charter says membership consists of those who have endorsed the
charter. Now, we have a list of those who voted in the charter vote, but
still not the names of those 3 who voted against the charter at that time.
So we really do not have the list of charter endorsees. Those who would have
joined IGC later may never have considered the option, may not know if it,
of endorsing the charter.

Though in the case of a few scores who joined after I sent out an invite
earlier this year, I clearly asked them about charter endorsement, and we
have a separate list of those among them who have endorsed the charter. But
they all in any case are still not eligible to vote.

As for the situation with the last elections, I quote my email of 24th
March, also enclosed, where I had solicited members views on the voting
rights issue.

"The ballot for the co-coordinator election of 2006 carried a proviso that
"by voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society participant
of the Internet Governance Caucus""

"I am trying to obtain the full list of those who voted in this election.
However I still wonder if an affirmation, that too only by implication and
not as a forthright statement, of being a 'CS participant of IGC' itself can
mean that one has endorsed the charter. It is likely that someone who does
enter into discussion on the list, but does not mean to endorse the charter
can say yes to this proviso and proceed to vote. And not be dishonest or
untruthful in doing so."

(ends)

So, what I now propose for the coordinator elections to send an email to all
those on the IGC since exactly 2 months from with something like

"This is to prepare a voting list for the election of co-coordinator of IGC.
The charter of the IGC at
http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html lays down that the
membership of IG consists of those who have endorsed the IGC charter. If you
endorse the IGC charter pleas cut paste the following lines and reply to
this email.

"I have read the IGC charter at .... and endorse it". With your full name
appended to this.

We will prepare a voting list of all who reply in say 10 days, and a ballot
will be sent to all of them and they given a week to vote.

As you know we have two candidates, David Goldstein and Ian Peter.

Please comment within the next 4 days if this process is fine with you. Also
give your suggestions etc. Avri has offered to help me with this process,
and we will commence it sometime next week.

Parminder

Avri - on your email on appeals committee, we will put one together after
this election, but as I said till a new one comes in we still go to the old
one for all purposes, including coordinator recall, and that it stays live.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; Jeanette Hofmann;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: AW: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
> BTW, if I remember correctly, we always had to co-chairs: YJ and me,
> Jenatte and Adama. And we had Parminder and Vittorio. Did Vittorio resign
> officially?
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Gesendet: Mo 14.04.2008 19:45
> An: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
>
>
>
> > Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> > wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> > people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> > hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> > away. Amen.
>
> Hi Jeanette
>
> That's rather ungratifying a reason for keeping me a coordinator :). On
> the
> other hand, I can assure you I am nowhere close to running away. Parminder
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:08 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim
> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> > Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
> >
> > Since this list has been extraordinary belligerent from day one,
> > wouldn't agree on any other chair either, in fact had problems finding
> > people volunteering for this job, we should stop this discussion and
> > hope that those who are willing to coordinate this huddle don't run
> > away. Amen.
> >
> > McTim wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
> > >>  > disrespect to his CS credentials, or his excellent work in IT For
> > >>  Change,
> > >>  > he recuse himself from his role as coordinator, and coordination
> be
> > >>  taken
> > >>  > over by Bill Drake, Adam, Meryem, Jeanette Hoffman or some others
> on
> > >>  the
> > >>  > list.
> > >>
> > >>  I'm not sure whether this was a serious suggestion, but if so it is
> > >>  highly inappropriate for you to try to leverage minor quibbles over
> a
> > >>  workshop into a coup. Parminder is our elected coordinator and shall
> > >>  remain so until we have another election.
> > >
> > > Or a recall (according to the charter).
> > >
> > >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr 15 06:06:51 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:06:51 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <012301c89e7b$71c17910$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <390307.72243.qm@web25510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/cb8f90ee/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Apr 15 06:17:29 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:17:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
 <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080415101810.BD0393B90A2@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi parminder

pulling the list of possibilities together for ease of reference

APC needs to consult much further internally, and 
particularly with members, and i don't think i 
could come back to you with a definite on most of 
this until next monday.. but as an indication

on the proposals contributed during the last open consultation:

1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the 
Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It

2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet

==> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance

we have already indicated our interest in this to bill

==> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance

on this topic.. i'd like to have more detail on 
what's proposed.. APC will continue to work with 
the COE and UNECE on public participation in IG 
mechanisms (which obviously includes issues of 
transparency and participation) building on last 
year's workshop - one outcome of which was a 
press release to lauch an initiative calling for 
a code of practice i9n relation to public 
participation principles. We have since begun a 
small research piece on this and will be sharing 
initial findings at a workshop on May 23rd in Geneva, co-sponsored by the COE.

We will also be working with the COE on a 
workshop proposal for the IGF - so, it might well 
make sense to try to dovetail the above with that 
- but i wouldn't want to tread on any toes and so 
would ask whoever proposed the above to share 
more info on what their plans are or how they 
perceived this workshop panning out?
==

on the current proposals

>5. Role and mandate of the IGF
==> interested in this, but not in taking a lead

>6. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
>7. Internationalization

>8. A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
==> interested in this, but we'd need far more 
time to discuss so i can't commit to leading as coordinator just now

karen 

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

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


From ginger at paque.net  Tue Apr 15 06:37:56 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:07:56 -0430
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
References: <390307.72243.qm@web25510.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005401c89ee4$c7cd45f0$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

I'd like to read a current discussion of whether ignorance IS bliss :), but not on this list. However, I am supporting informed choice, not ignorance here. I think most of the world would and should choose to have the opportunities offered by Internet access, and I support both the choice and the right to access. I also support the right to an informed choice to stay disconnected, as some indigenous communities have decided. I realize no one has spoken against that right. It was just a gentle reminder that not everyone needs to or chooses to employ technology, even if I do want to have the latest gadgets.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kwasi boakye-akyeampong 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


        Is ignorance bliss?

        He may not even know that those opportunites exist.

        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 Hillel
        ..............................................................................................................................
        Click to visit my blog



        --- On Mon, 14/4/08, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:

          From: Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net>
          Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
          To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
          Date: Monday, 14 April, 2008, 11:03 PM


          Is this a trick question? The same opportunities?

          A resounding no, for reasons that seem too obvious to bother enumerating.

          On the other hand, it is possible that a person who has NO Internet access also enjoys some different opportunities, even if she does not have as many. For instance, lower stress level in some ways? Possibility of a rich and productive local society?


            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Ian Peter 
            To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
            Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 4:36 PM
            Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


            A fundamental question -

            Does a person who has no Internet access enjoy the same opportunities in
            global society as those who do?



            Ian Peter
            (the last living NWICO fan...)

            No virus found in this outgoing message.
            Checked by AVG. 
            Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1377 - Release Date: 14/04/2008
            09:26
             

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

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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! for Good helps you make a difference 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/7c1fc5e0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 06:42:40 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:42:40 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415101810.BD0393B90A2@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <20080415101810.BD0393B90A2@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804150342n1bfb79aenf55388ee6811b3e4@mail.gmail.com>

hi all,

I think if it will be benefit to add a workshop for the following
preoccupation:
Internet and Multilinguism

Baudouin


2008/4/15, karen banks <karenb at gn.apc.org>:
>
> hi parminder
>
> pulling the list of possibilities together for ease of reference
>
> APC needs to consult much further internally, and particularly with
> members, and i don't think i could come back to you with a definite on most
> of this until next monday.. but as an indication
>
> on the proposals contributed during the last open consultation:
>
> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the Tunis Agenda, and What Is
> the Status of It
>
> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
>
> ==> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> we have already indicated our interest in this to bill
>
> ==> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
>
> on this topic.. i'd like to have more detail on what's proposed.. APC will
> continue to work with the COE and UNECE on public participation in IG
> mechanisms (which obviously includes issues of transparency and
> participation) building on last year's workshop - one outcome of which was a
> press release to lauch an initiative calling for a code of practice i9n
> relation to public participation principles. We have since begun a small
> research piece on this and will be sharing initial findings at a workshop on
> May 23rd in Geneva, co-sponsored by the COE.
>
> We will also be working with the COE on a workshop proposal for the IGF -
> so, it might well make sense to try to dovetail the above with that - but i
> wouldn't want to tread on any toes and so would ask whoever proposed the
> above to share more info on what their plans are or how they perceived this
> workshop panning out?
> ==
>
> on the current proposals
>
>  5. Role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> ==> interested in this, but not in taking a lead
>
>  6. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
> > 7. Internationalization
> >
>
>  8. A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
> >
> ==> interested in this, but we'd need far more time to discuss so i can't
> commit to leading as coordinator just now
>
> karen
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
TEL:00243998983491
EMAIL:b.schombe at gmail.com <EMAIL%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/2d8da129/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 06:47:07 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:47:07 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <048a01c89ea6$22b38810$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <048a01c89ea6$22b38810$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804150347o38e7950ewfcb6f6afac26038f@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>  CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY OR WHERE THE MARKET DOESN'T SEE MUCH VALUE IN PROVIDING
>  A SUPPLY AT A REASONABLE COST IS WHERE "RIGHTS" (ON PAPER OR WHEREVER)
>  BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHERE THE INTERNET CAN AND SHOULD BE "MADE"
>  TO GROW.

Ummm, where I live, this is done via regulation, taxation and
subsequent subsidy.  In very few places in the world is there solely a
"free-market" in telecoms/Internet (Somalia springs to mind, where
prices are the cheapest in Africa). There are also very few places in
the world where there is the heavy hand of the state in place of the
market (think North Korea, where Internet access for citizens is
almost non-existent).

Between these extremes lie everyone else.  I don't see how inventing a
new "right" will lead to a new paradigm, especially in a forum that
produces no binding decisions.  It'll just be another empty promise
left unfulfilled.

We will still have national regulation as the dominant paradigm in
terms of access, as long as we have the concept national sovereignty
in place.

-- 
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  Tue Apr 15 06:50:22 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:20:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415101810.BD0393B90A2@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080415105031.613A5E2427@smtp3.electricembers.net>


Karen


> ==> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> 
> on this topic.. i'd like to have more detail on
> what's proposed..

I am enclosing the doc with the 4 themes, including this one, that we
suggested in Feb, with some elaboration of each. It does pick up some of
APC's earlier docs. 

> - but i wouldn't want to tread on any toes and so
> would ask whoever proposed the above to share
> more info on what their plans are or how they
> perceived this workshop panning out?

Think, the basic idea is the same as APC is trying out. There is no specific
proponent of this idea in the IGC, as far as I can remember. And don't worry
about treading on toes, we are all wearing hard boots, and are battle
hardened :)

> >8. A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG
> ==> interested in this, but we'd need far more
> time to discuss so i can't commit to leading as coordinator just now

We can wait for your confirmation, or Michael can convene the working group.
I will like to be in the group too. Anyone else? Karen, I am sure you can be
in the group right away even if not convening it. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:47 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC workshops
> 
> hi parminder
> 
> pulling the list of possibilities together for ease of reference
> 
> APC needs to consult much further internally, and
> particularly with members, and i don't think i
> could come back to you with a definite on most of
> this until next monday.. but as an indication
> 
> on the proposals contributed during the last open consultation:
> 
> 1. Enhanced Cooperation - What Was Meant By the
> Tunis Agenda, and What Is the Status of It
> 
> 2. Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet
> 
> ==> 3. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> we have already indicated our interest in this to bill
> 
> ==> 4. Transparency and Inclusive Participation in Internet Governance
> 
> on this topic.. i'd like to have more detail on
> what's proposed.. APC will continue to work with
> the COE and UNECE on public participation in IG
> mechanisms (which obviously includes issues of
> transparency and participation) building on last
> year's workshop - one outcome of which was a
> press release to lauch an initiative calling for
> a code of practice i9n relation to public
> participation principles. We have since begun a
> small research piece on this and will be sharing
> initial findings at a workshop on May 23rd in Geneva, co-sponsored by the
> COE.
> 
> We will also be working with the COE on a
> workshop proposal for the IGF - so, it might well
> make sense to try to dovetail the above with that
> - but i wouldn't want to tread on any toes and so
> would ask whoever proposed the above to share
> more info on what their plans are or how they
> perceived this workshop panning out?
> ==
> 
> on the current proposals
> 
> >5. Role and mandate of the IGF
> ==> interested in this, but not in taking a lead
> 
> >6. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
> >7. Internationalization
> 
> >8. A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG
> ==> interested in this, but we'd need far more
> time to discuss so i can't commit to leading as coordinator just now
> 
> karen
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGC - Main themes for IGF Hyd.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 14640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/7b05970f/attachment.pdf>

From wsis at ngocongo.org  Tue Apr 15 09:57:33 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:57:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] Updates on 11th session of the CSTD (26-30 May 2008):
 prgramme of work, side events, etc
Message-ID: <200804151356.m3FDuQ8P020511@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Find below some information regarding the preparations towards the up-coming
11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, in
charge of the follow up to WSIS. Let me remind you that the two substantive
themes are:

-          in relation to WSIS follow up: Development-oriented policies for
socio-economic inclusive information society, including access,
infrastructure and an enabling environment;

-          in relation to the CSTD traditional mandate: Science, technology
and engineering for innovation and capacity-building in education and
research;

The CSTD will also have a general overview on the Follow-up to WSIS.

 

Agenda and Programme of Work

Find attached the annotated agenda of the next session of the Commission,
which contains also a draft time management schedule. Note that the
following specific segments so far:

 

-          Two multi-stakeholder panel discussions will take place on
Tuesday 27 May (10.00-13.00) on two WSIS follow-up themes:  1) The emerging
"broadband divide" and what to do about it; and 2) Cybersecurity. Modalities
for participation are expected to be informal and interactive. The first
panel will be organised by the CTSD Secretariat, the ITU and the GAID
Secretariat, while the second panel is lead by the ITU. 

-          A multi-stakeholder country policy review of two countries on the
basis of the two substantive themes of the 11th session of the CSTD on
Thursday 29 May (10.00-13.00), which would constitute best practices
examples. The two or three countries to be reviewed will be members of the
Commission.

 

In addition to these two multi-stakeholder sessions, note the following:

 

-          An opening meeting on Monday 26 May (starting at 10.00),
featuring some high level opening speakers. There would be an opportunity to
have a CS speaker in this opening segment of the Commission. The name of
Daniel Pimienta (from Funredes) has been at this stage suggested to the CTSD
Secretariat. As a well known and active participant in the WSIS process and
its follow-up, my understanding is that he would enjoy a general support
from the members of this group. It would also be important to include here
somebody from LAC since this region has been quite underrepresented in the
WSIS follow up and implementation process so far. I am looking for any
feedback from you at this point. 

-          A Panel discussion and interactive dialogue with the UN regional
commissions on Monday 26 May (15.00-18.00).

 

The rest of the session's schedule is organised around general debates on
agenda items, but we are still pushing and exploring how to strengthen a
format organised around more issue-focused and targeted interactive
dialogues - at least on WSIS follow up matters. 

 

Side events

The CSTD Secretariat made available two rooms for additional side events to
be organised by NGOs or other stakeholders during the CTSD session. Requests
should be addressed to Charles Geiger directly. 

 

Some side events have already been planned during the 11th session,
including the three-day 2008 Global Event on Measuring the Information
Society (27-29 May 2008), organized by the Partnership on Measuring ICT for
Development. The Global Event is included in the cluster of WSIS-related
events 2008 that will be taking place in Geneva and is open to all WSIS
stakeholders. More information at
http://new.unctad.org/templates/Event____888.aspx.

 

Note as well the the Global Alliance for ICT and Development (GAID) is
expected to hold an Open Consultation in Geneva during the CTSD week. Date
to be confirmed and more information coming soon on this matter.

 

Documentation

Some documents related to the WSIS follow up activities at the CSTD have
already been issued:

 

-          Report
<http://www.unctad.org/sections/dite_dir/docs/dite_pcbb_stdev0106_en.pdf>
of the Inter-sessional Panel, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 28-30 November 2007
(which was an expert meeting in preparation to the 11th session, with a
particular focus on the substantive themes of the up coming session).

-          The UN SG substantive report on Development-oriented
<http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162008d3_en.pdf>  policies for a
socio-economic inclusive information society, including access,
infrastructure and enabling environment (substantive theme of this session).

-          All stakeholder contributions submitted to the CSTD Secretariat
(including reports of international organisation in charge of facilitating
MSH implementation and reports of regional commissions) are also posted at
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4447
<http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4447&lang=1> &lang=1.

 

This should be completed by the UN SG report on the Follow-up to WSIS as
well as the CTSD Secretariat 2008 WSIS Report, as previously mentioned.
These documents are not yet available. 

 

Sponsorship

The list of CS participants to be sponsored for their participation in the
CSTD should be circulated shortly. 

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

 

Philippe Dam
CONGO - Information Society &
Human Rights Coordinator
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/cb5cd98d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda and organizaton of work CSTD 2008.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 119179 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/cb5cd98d/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 09:58:39 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:58:39 +0800
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <B9D8B08B-2053-4071-9F5D-C00100A56F8B@Malcolm.id.au>

On 15/04/2008, at 5:06 PM, Parminder wrote:
> So, what I now propose for the coordinator elections to send an  
> email to all
> those on the IGC since exactly 2 months from with something like
> ...snip...
> Please comment within the next 4 days if this process is fine with  
> you. Also
> give your suggestions etc. Avri has offered to help me with this  
> process,
> and we will commence it sometime next week.


The process is fine with me.  And it probably goes without saying, but  
in light of recent comments, Parminder has my full confidence as the  
other coordinator.

-- 
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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Apr 15 10:01:13 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:01:13 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
Message-ID: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/c20fcf18/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 10:22:05 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:22:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] Registration for CTSD-11 and WSIS related cluster of
 meeting OPEN
Message-ID: <200804151420.m3FEKxVp011245@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

The registration process for the May 2008 WSIS meetings is now OPEN.

 

Cluster of WSIS related events (13-29 May 2008)

The ITU has set up an online badge request and registration webpage
available from http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?year=2008
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='
alf'&subtype=0> &month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0.

 

This is relevant for all registration to the IGF Open Consultation taking
place at the UN (13 May), as well as for the Action Line Facilitation
Meetings taking place at the ITU (19-23 May).

Quite interestingly, it also relates to registration for the 2008 Global
Event on Measuring the Information Society taking place at the UN in
parallel to the CTSD session (27-29 May).

 

This registration process is open to all WSIS stakeholders due to the
informal nature of these meetings.

 

A list of WSIS related meetings is available on the WSIS website HERE
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp?year=2008&month=0&type='
alf'&subtype=0> , and a time table is also updated by CONGO HERE
<http://www.csbureau.info/Time%20table%20IS%20week%202008.doc> . 

 

11th session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
(26-30 May 2008)

The registration form for the CSTD 11 is available at
http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_registration_en.doc
<http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs/ecn162008_registration_en.doc>
(accessible from the CSTD webpage). Due to the formal nature of the CSTD
session, registration is limited to NGOs in ECOSOC Consultative Status and
other civil society entities accredited during the WSIS process. 

 

Feel free to come back to us for any question in this regard.

 

Ph

 

 

Philippe Dam
CONGO - Information Society &
Human Rights Coordinator
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wphilippe.dam at ngocongo.org> philippe.dam at ngocongo.org
Website:  <blocked::http://www.ngocongo.org> www.ngocongo.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/0747d1c7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Apr 15 11:07:16 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:07:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>

Kwasi:

As the issue you raise is really more related to network neutrality, i  
hope you don't mind that I've changed the subject line...

On that topic - there's a rather - extensive - debate currently taking  
place  about network neutrality in Canada. let me recommend the  
following references:

Keeping the net neutral
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/net-neutral.html

Net Neutrality Canada
http://www.neutrality.ca/

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2787/125/

CRTC To Face Net Neutrality Issue as CAIP Demands Bell Cease and  
Desist Its Throttling Practices
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2811/125/


The CRTC has to date largely avoided the net neutrality issue,  
however, that is about to change.  The Canadian Association of  
Internet Providers, Canada's largest ISP association, has filed a Part  
VII application with the CRTC asking it to direct Bell Canada to cease  
and desist from throttling its wholesale Internet service.

regards

Robert


On 15-Apr-08, at 10:01 AM, kwasi boakye-akyeampong wrote:
> There is heated debate currently in the UK about whether Internet  
> bandwidth should be metered. Most ISPs contend that today's  
> applications increasingly put pressure on bandwidth which is not  
> infinite, as a result there should be a way of controlling  
> consumption. Current pricing models allow most users unlimited  
> downloads.
>
> Some users argue that things work out since not every one is a heavy  
> user. Most domestic users, in fact, use the Net basically for  
> checking their mails and hardly download stuff.
>
> Are the ISPs complaints legitimate? Are video-rich websites like  
> youtube having significant impact yet?
>
> Kwasi

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

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


From nancyp at yorku.ca  Tue Apr 15 11:19:30 2008
From: nancyp at yorku.ca (nancyp at yorku.ca)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:19:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
References: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1208272770.4804c782aa0b2@mymail.yorku.ca>

Hi,

I'd like to add a bit to the flow at this point; I agree as well, with Parminder
and Lee that IGF is the perfect place for discussions of universal access as a
policy/Internet governance first principle.
My (YorkU, Toronto) thesis rsrch is indebted to Lee McKnight and others on the
topic of internet infrastructure revenue mgmt. As you know open communications
policy is not simple - to address this my work gathers up the relevant sources
to date, in order to further the idea that internet interconnection is the
locus of control of the internet. Requiring all (regardless of size or
location) peering policies (not transit) to be open and public information
would greatly assist with the goal of establishing universal access as a
principle.
Nancy Paterson



Quoting Lee McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>:

> If I may beg to differ with Bill, and agree with Parminder, that actuallyIGF
> is the perfect place for discussions of universal access as a policy/Internet
> governance first principle.
>
> Certainly it is an important topic addressed elsewhere, particularly focusing
> on specific mechanism to enhance access in one domain or another. But
> considering its implications as a more or less new human right would seem an
> appropriate topic for a workshop at IGC 08. This view is implicit in much of
> what IGF, or IGP, or ICANN/ISOC/IETF for that matter, do. So shouldn't it be
> discussed aloud at IGC?
>
> Lee
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
> >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch 04/14/08 6:39 AM >>>
> Hi,
>
> I was going to follow Meryem¹s suggestion that for easier scanning subject
> lines be changed to reflect the contents, but I¹m unable to think of a
> focused topical tag that captures all the bits in this particular
> conversation.
>
> Michael,
>
> Your formulation of access as a right is more bounded than Parminder¹s
> elaboration re: commercial vs noncommercial spaces etc. It¹s certainly an
> important topic and one on which I can imagine a well structured discussion.
> The question is, where would it be most useful to have that discussion,
> given that access is presently the direct subject of national and regional
> policies rather international or transnational arrangements (national IG,
> rather than global).  I would argue that per our discussions in the GAID, it
> would be useful to be clear on ICT4D vs IG4D and focus on the former in
> GAID, as well as perhaps the OECD Seoul meeting.  In those settings, the
> various national and municipal approaches to universal access, both
> commercial and alternative, could be usefully compared and critiqued and a
> rights-based approach advanced.  But since the caucus argued in its February
> position statements that the IGF should really be focused on IG, and Nitin
> included the point in his summary, I think it would be odd for us to turn
> around and propose a ws that runs opposite of our stance.  The only obvious
> way to get around this would be to claim the right¹s implied by
> international human rights agreements, but I¹m skeptical we¹d get all that
> far with this angle.
>
> Parminder,
>
> We both recognize that we are highly unlikely to persuade each other on
> this, so it would probably make sense to save our bits for more useful
> discussions like identifying three (max, I think) ws the caucus could
> plausibly pull together in the next two weeks.  But briefly:
> *Sorry, but I do think you are presenting caricatures of the views and
> activities of people you¹ve not talked to, processes you weren¹t involved
> with, etc. McTim has made the same point re: technical and administrative
> orgs.  You of course have every right to do so, but don¹t be bummed if
> people are not persuaded by it.
> *Right, I think that commercial provisioning of infrastructure etc in not
> intrinsically incompatible with the wider set of economic, social and
> political activities you mention.
> *Right, some industry people saw GDD programs---Clinton, DOT Force, Digital
> Opp, WEF TF---as commercial opportunities.  How else could they justify
> engagement to CEOs, shareholders, etc (this was very much an issue for
> some). But that does not necessarily capture all of their concerns.  You
> should talk to John Gage at Sun and others who were involved and then
> decided whether working in industry by definition means that one cannot give
> a damn about social empowerment etc.
> *Again, I don¹t know what ³the present IG regime² means.  If you¹re
> referring to the governance of core resources specifically, sure industry
> has too much influence on some aspects and public interest advocates should
> push for a better balance. But again I think this is an overly totalizing
> view of a broad range of actors and institutions.
> *To me, a development agenda is a holistic program of analysis and action
> intended to mainstream development considerations into the operations and
> outputs of Internet governance mechanisms, of which there are many. In those
> cases where Œstructural imbalances¹ are thereby clearly identifiable,
> countervailing efforts can be debated (enacted is politically more
> difficult, but with good process management might be viable.)  In some cases
> there may not be  Œstructural imbalances¹ requiring more than capacity
> building and some institutional reforms.  It depends what we¹re talking
> about, I wouldn¹t prejudge with a sweeping assertion that everything sucks
> and must be changed, at least not if we want to do more than talk among
> ourselves.  The ws I said weeks ago I am organizing as a follow up to the
> previous one will delve deeper into this and I¹m lining up speakers and
> cosponsors.
>
> The lack of engagement by others in this discussion suggests to me that the
> caucus is unlikely to agree a ws on whatever is supposed to be the topic
> here quickly.  Perhaps we could refocus on three proposals likely to attract
> consensus rather than generate dissensus?  People have expressed interest in
> mandate, internationalization, and jurisdiction, that¹s a plenty full plate.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
> On 4/14/08 11:01 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill
> >
> > I do not have your close knowledge of what happened in the US in those
> days,
> > but what I see from the documents that I can access I stand by my
> assertion.
> > Well, mine was surely a shorthand description of the thinking and
> background
> > which shaped the current IG regime, but I don think it is a caricature. And
> I
> > take the proof of the pudding from its taste, as we can feel, here and now.
> Is
> > it your case that the present IG dispensation is not essentially ordered on
> > regulation of commercial activities? In fact it is worse than that. It is
> to a
> > good extent an industry self regulation regime, which doesn¹t meet even the
> > canons of a good commercial activity regulation regime.
> >
> >> >Hence, re: ³Anyone would agree that the two kinds of areas of activity
> >> require different governance and policy >approaches,² nope, not me, I
> think
> >> the issue is >misconstructed.
> >
> > What I meant to say here is that purely commercial activities, on one hand,
> > and a wider set of economic, social and political activities, on the other,
> > require different kinds of regulatory/ governance regimes. Do you say that
> you
> > don¹t agree to this proposition? That¹s all is what I meant when I said
> > Œanyone will agree (except diehard neolibs) Š..
> >
> >> >net was seen in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a
> >> broader understanding in the White House that >included the noncommercial
> >> aspects, >e.g. tackling the global digital divide.
> >
> > I have great problem with how Œglobal digital divide¹ issue was interpreted
> by
> > US, and probably form there taken to G-8¹s meeting which gave birth to DOT
> > Force, and the Digital Opportunities Initiative and then through UNDP and
> > other donor systems was adopted as the dominant ICT4D theory and practice
> in
> > developing countries. These initiatives did some good in giving initial
> > impetus of ICT adoption in development, but we do trace the roots of the
> > present systemic failure of ICT4D theory and practice to these foreign
> roots,
> > and to the embedded commercial interests of developed country MNCs in
> telecom
> > and other IT areas. Don¹t want to go into further elaboration, but needed
> to
> > mention that this too is line of thinking with some good basis and
> supportŠ..
> > So whether Œtackling the global digital divide¹ really, and entirely,
> > represented as you say Œnon-commercial aspects¹  of the thinking that
> shaped
> > present IG (or ICT governance) regimes is greatly contestable.
> >
> > In any case, if you really do not think that the present IG regime is
> > disproportionately oriented to (1) industry interests and/or (2) (to give a
> > more gracious interpretation) only to regulation of commercial activity,
> and
> > not sufficiently to social, political activities and possibilities (which
> are
> > increasingly a greater share of the Internet), and even much less to
> > developmental activities and possibilities, I fail to understand what is
> the
> > basis and significance of a development agenda addressed to the global IG
> > regime that you often propound. Dev Agenda (DA) in WTO arises from a
> > recognition of structural bias in the global trade regime towards the
> > interests of developing countries and its capital, that of WIPO comes from
> > similar grounds, and a bias towards IP (commercial) vis a vis access to
> > knowledge (social/ political/ developmental). What is the basis of a DA in
> IG
> > if not a structural imbalance/ distortion in the global IG regime. And if
> so,
> > what imbalance/ distortion do you identify, if you think my industry
> > interests/ commercial activity versus social-political/ developmental
> > dichotomy is as you say Œfalse¹?
> >
> >> >I don¹t believe there is ³a² regime for IG.  There are many regimes.  And
> >> there is no international regime governing >access,
> >
> > Unlike Michael, I am not talking only of the access regime. But I
> understand
> > your take on dev agenda also speaks of more than the access regime, right.
> If
> > not, Œthere being no one regime¹ argument extends to dev agenda issue as
> well.
> > And if it does go beyond access regimes what are these - and what
> Œproblems¹
> > and Œissues¹ with these regimes (and with access regime)  fire your
> > imagination of a dev agenda since you say my caricature of the structural
> > problem with these regimes is false. BTW, why don¹t we do an IGC workshop
> on
> > Œdev agenda in IG¹, which I am sure you want to do, and think APC also
> > mentions in its recent substantive inputs as does Swiss gov, and yes, ITfC
> > also have some views on it.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:02 PM
> > To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
> >
> > Hi Parminder,
> >
> > There are too many conversations going on simultaneously to spend much
> juice
> > on any one of them, but since you¹re replying to me directly:
> >
> > I don¹t agree with your restrictive historical reading of how the net was
> seen
> > in the Clinton era.  The commercial GII stuff was part of a broader
> > understanding in the White House that included the noncommercial aspects,
> e.g.
> > tackling the global digital divide.  I knew the staff involved---Gore¹s
> > people, the NEC, the OSTP, etc---and went to a number of meetings they
> > organized to build consensus across branches of government, bus