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


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

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


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 12:10:51 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:10:51 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C26@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <20080415090621.103E0E23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804150910v6c715ebdy7fa63349e508654d@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings and a question, info will be much appreciated.

As just one person, but perhaps the question holds across the list to some
extent, I would very much like to participate, contribute here to the
fullest of capacity.  But the nominations / elections are not as clear to me
as might be.  So asking your patience and forbearance ahead of time ... can
you please clarify.

When we are nominated for something I consider it gracious to then step
aside and not ask for another role.  But it is many months now since
acknowledging the honor of the GAID C.S. Nomination, with others.  then ...
apparent silence.  A bit embarrassing, but not the worse calamity of course.

Meanwhile, one does not ask for more opportunities.

So.. is this group separate (that is distinguished from) the C.S.
nominations e.g. to the GAID? Was that something different, and WSIS
related, but is not this group WSIS related?

Clarifications appreciated; see you again soon here, and add me to active
participant committees etc. as you may see fit.

:) LDMF.


On 4/15/08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>


-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
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/20080415/6dec98f3/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 nancyp at yorku.ca  Tue Apr 15 12:17:52 2008
From: nancyp at yorku.ca (nancyp at yorku.ca)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:17:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <1208276272.4804d5306a760@mymail.yorku.ca>


Hi,
Indeed at OttawaU there are a number of people including Michael Geist who are
exploring Net Neutrality. At this point it seems a duality of issues have
become somewhat narrowly focused upon.  First, the discussions regarding the
international oversight of the Domain Naming System.  Secondly, the Net
neutrality debate revolving around last mile connectivity and end user issues
in the domestic arena. It is interesting that the two concepts fall so far at
the ends of the broad scale of connectivity.  This dichotomy does have a middle
ground.  It is the network of wires, cables, fibre, servers, colocational
spaces, carrier hotels, interconnect facilities, and transborder gateways.  In
short, the peering points and the bandwidth which is connected, comprising the
internet infrastructure. Policy based routing is instrumental in traffic
shaping and net neutrality discussions.
Nancy Paterson


Quoting Robert Guerra <lists at 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
>


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 12:29:21 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:29:21 +0300
Subject: [governance] SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
In-Reply-To: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804150929x57b00780l1a66e6c2f3b22241@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM, kwasi boakye-akyeampong
<kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk> 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.

Yes, this "way' is typically called a contract.

Current pricing models allow most users
> unlimited downloads.

but in the UK, there are also "pay-per-bit" models.

> 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.
>

true.

> Are the ISPs complaints legitimate?

sure. Selling IP connectivity is a very low margin commodity game.
When your customers consume more of the commodity (but don't pay you
any more, you have to provision more, this is costly.  Your profits
shrink to near zero and some of your competition (in the UK at least)
offer connectivity for zero GBP per month.


>Are video-rich websites like youtube
> having significant impact yet?

certainly, though in the UK, it's more aboout BBC's iPlayer I think.


-- 
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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Apr 15 12:40:36 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:40:36 +0100
Subject: [governance] SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804150929x57b00780l1a66e6c2f3b22241@mail.gmail.com>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <f65fb55e0804150929x57b00780l1a66e6c2f3b22241@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4804DA84.6040703@wzb.eu>



McTim wrote:
>
> 
>> Are video-rich websites like youtube
>> having significant impact yet?
> 
> certainly, though in the UK, it's more aboout BBC's iPlayer I think.

Yes, since BBC introduced its laudable service, a regular/low price DSL 
connection isn't sufficient anymore at least in my area to watch videos 
on the net.
jeanette
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 12:41:28 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:41:28 +0300
Subject: [governance] Where are we with IGC workshops?
In-Reply-To: <1208272770.4804c782aa0b2@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>
	 <1208272770.4804c782aa0b2@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804150941o5fbf5d3r51ac399b805153bd@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Nancy,

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> 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.

First of all, documenting one's peering policy IS "required" (both
transit and non-transit peers) by several RIRs in order to get an ASN,
others simply recommend it as BCP.  Not that it is up to date in all
cases mind you, but still, it is there.

So for example, say you are Sony in Japan. You apply for an ASN and
you get one, but in the AP region documenting routing policy is
mandatory, so SONY had to fill in their request form with the import
and export fields filled in like this:

aut-num:      AS9600
as-name:      SONYTELECOM
descr:        SONY CORPORATION
import:       from AS2527 100 accept ANY
import:       from AS2914 100 accept ANY
import:       from AS3549 100 accept ANY
import:       from AS9619 100 accept AS9619
export:       to AS2527 announce AS9600
export:       to AS2914 announce AS9600
export:       to AS3549 announce AS9600
export:       to AS9619 announce ANY
country:      JP
admin-c:      NM044JP
tech-c:       KT9170JP
tech-c:       YY4444JP
changed:      apnic-ftp at nic.ad.jp 20000125
changed:      apnic-ftp at nic.ad.jp 20030221
source:       JPNIC

You can see a pretty picture of their routing policy here:

http://www.robtex.com/as/as9600.html

and tons of information on AS9600 routing here:

http://www.ris.ripe.net/dashboard/as9600 (altho service is currently degraded)

and a very cool animation of their routing can be done here:

http://www.ris.ripe.net/bgplay/

but you need a prefix for that, not an ASN, which you can find on the
dashboard link above.

Since this information has been mandatory for much of the world for
many years, can you tell me how requiring it (now) "would greatly
assist with the goal of establishing universal access as a
principle."??

I'm just not understanding that.  Nor do I understand the mechanism by
which you would like it to be "required".  UN/EU directives? national
laws?

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 12:57:23 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:57:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <1208276272.4804d5306a760@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	 <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
	 <1208276272.4804d5306a760@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804150957x4cc4b4f7y96d3dc398c3d1d62@mail.gmail.com>

hullo again,


On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>  Indeed at OttawaU there are a number of people including Michael Geist who are
>  exploring Net Neutrality. At this point it seems a duality of issues have
>  become somewhat narrowly focused upon.  First, the discussions regarding the
>  international oversight of the Domain Naming System.

howzat a net neutrality issue?

Secondly, the Net
>  neutrality debate revolving around last mile connectivity and end user issues
>  in the domestic arena. It is interesting that the two concepts fall so far at
>  the ends of the broad scale of connectivity.  This dichotomy does have a middle
>  ground.  It is the network of wires, cables, fibre, servers, colocational
>  spaces, carrier hotels, interconnect facilities, and transborder gateways.  In
>  short, the peering points and the bandwidth which is connected, comprising the
>  internet infrastructure. Policy based routing is instrumental in traffic
>  shaping and net neutrality discussions.

There is a specific list for this: http://www.nnsquad.org/
It's moderated tho, which is very odd.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 13:03:42 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:03:42 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804150347o38e7950ewfcb6f6afac26038f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000401c89f1a$a99576d0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Mmmm... Yes of course, and that's the point... These matters are subject to
some sort of state involvement in most jurisdictions (though not all I
think) and BTW your point about Somalia and North Korea are red herrings
since neither has a reasonably functioning state structure as might be
recognizable (or useful) in any good faith discussion (cf. Godwin's law) on
the issues...

And since these matters are subject to state involvement then promoting the
development of a normative framework (shorthand for "Rights"?) to underly
those processes would seem to be a very useful (and highly appropriate)
contribution from CS in discussions such as the IGF.

As for suggesting that we shouldn't be discussing something "in a forum that
produces no binding decisions" indicates to me thay you are suggesting that
we should limit the dicussion in schools, universities, churches, op ed
pages, etc.etc. to technical discussions on the proper means for the
implementation of IPv6, registry lookup tables, or whatever happens to be
the technical issue of the day.

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 15, 2008 3:47 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


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 ca at rits.org.br  Tue Apr 15 13:27:27 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:27:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804150957x4cc4b4f7y96d3dc398c3d1d62@mail.gmail.com>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>	 <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>	 <1208276272.4804d5306a760@mymail.yorku.ca> <f65fb55e0804150957x4cc4b4f7y96d3dc398c3d1d62@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4804E57F.40307@rits.org.br>



McTim wrote:
> hullo again,
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 7:17 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>  Hi,
>>  Indeed at OttawaU there are a number of people including Michael Geist who are
>>  exploring Net Neutrality. At this point it seems a duality of issues have
>>  become somewhat narrowly focused upon.  First, the discussions regarding the
>>  international oversight of the Domain Naming System.
> 
> howzat a net neutrality issue?

I think this is a theme for a workshop addressing net neutrality, which
is of course a key IG issue. The DNS as centrally managed today under
those infamous contracts with the USA is vulnerable to the whims of the
black-and-white neurosis dominating the "Western democracies". Witness
the blacklisting of gTLD domain names by the Treasury Dept. (more than
3,700 domains blacklisted just because they display the word "cuba" in
them), and so on.

McT, Nancy is obviously not talking about just the net of machines
running BIND...

--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 gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 14:06:23 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:06:23 -0700
Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new
 members to the global  alliance on ICT
Message-ID: <004601c89f23$71b024a0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Of particular interest in this context is the appointment of Parminder to
the Strategy Council of the GAID (Congratulations Parminder!).

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] On
Behalf Of Serge Kapto
Sent: April 15, 2008 7:14 AM
To: discuss at un-gaid.org
Subject: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new members to the global
alliance on ICT

MEDIAINFO-DPI/NY/UNO 
10/04/2008 02:19 PM

To

cc

Subject
UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

PRESS RELEASE

        UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

United Nations, 09 APRIL –The United Nations announced today the 
appointment of new members to the Global Alliance for Information and 
Communications Technology and Development (GAID). 
The new members replace the members of the GAID Steering Committee and 
Strategy Council hosted by the United Nations Department of Economic and 
Social Affairs. The new members will carry on the strategic work towards 
achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ICT policies as laid 
out by the outgoing members.
The new members were selected through international consultation with all 
stakeholder groups to ensure a balance in gender, geographical and 
institutional representation. The new membership was approved by Mr. 
Zukang Sha, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, whose 
Department (UNDESA) oversees the operations of GAID. 
The composition of the Steering Committee has been expanded from 12 to 15 
and the Strategy Council from 60 to 65, with the new members poised to 
reflect the growing interest and recognition of the role of ICT in the 
development and the rising profile of GAID. 
The function of the Steering Committee is to provide overall guidance for 
GAID and to help define the medium and long-term priorities along with the 
Strategy Council, as well as to serve the Under-Secretary-General in an 
advisory capacity. For its part, the Strategy Council plays an active role 
in disseminating the results of policy dialogue to a wider audience and in 
promoting and coordinating further partnerships with GAID. Gloria Bonder
(UNESCO Women, Science and Technology in Latin America), 
Jennifer Corriero (TakingITGlobal), Abdul W. Khan (UNESCO), Thierno 
Ousmane Sy (Government of Senegal), Mohsen Khalil (World Bank), and Ramón 
Garza (Índigo Media) are joining the committee this term. Dr. Craig 
Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel, will continue to serve as the 
committee chair through to the Fall of 2009. 
The Strategy Council will be joined by Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas, 
Croatia, Gambia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Syria, and 
Vietnam as new government members; Ibrahim Adel (Zain), Roger Cochetti 
(CompTIA), Johan F. Khairuddin (Astro plc), Tom Phillips (GSM 
Association), Peter Tinoco (Cisneros), and Jeffrey M. Nick (EMC 
Corporation) are representing private sector entities; Clotide Fonseca 
Quesada (Omar Dengo Foundation), Qiheng Hu (Internet Society of China), 
Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), Doroth Okello (WOUGNET), Rinalia Abdul Rahim 
(Global Knowledge Partnership), Abdulaziz Sager (Gulf Research Center), 
Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) are representing civil entities. The 
new members representing other international organizations are Patricia 
Francis (International Trade Centre), Zhou Yiping (UNDP), and the Network 
of Local Authorities for the Information Society (IT4All Bilbao). 
The term of the current membership was extended to coordinate the GAID 
leadership with the upcoming GAID Annual Meeting and Global Forum in Kuala 
Lumpur at the end of May. Over the past year-and-a-half, GAID has 
benefited from the work of the outgoing members whose support and 
engagement have been crucial to ensure GAID’s success. They will continue 
to serve an important and active role as High-level Advisers of the 
Alliance and in promoting information technologies at the service of 
development. 
For more information, please visit http://www.un-gaid.org or contact 
Enrica Murmura of UNDESA- GAID, Tel: +1 212 963 5913, e-mail: 
murmura at un.org 


!DSPAM:2676,4804b54a227568588215668!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, 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 and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00089.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/aba70ceb/attachment.txt>

From icggov at johnlevine.com  Tue Apr 15 15:25:43 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 15 Apr 2008 19:25:43 -0000
Subject: [governance] UK monopoly power, was SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
In-Reply-To: <4804DA84.6040703@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080415192543.4726.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>Yes, since BBC introduced its laudable service, a regular/low price DSL 
>connection isn't sufficient anymore at least in my area to watch videos 
>on the net.

My understanding is that this is really an argument between BT and
other British ISPs about BT's pricing, since BT remains a de-facto
monopoly for wholesale net access in the UK.

Issues of monopoly power and what to do about it go back to the 19th
century if not beyond.  It's certainly an important topic, but I don't
see that it's one on which this group has any particularly deep
insights.

In this particular case, I'm surprised that the other ISPs don't make
arrangements to mirror the Beeb's streaming content on their own
networks.

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 wsis at ngocongo.org  Tue Apr 15 15:53:59 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:53:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] UNCTAD XII Roundtable on Harnessing knowledge and
 Technology for Development (24-4-2008, Accra)
Message-ID: <200804151952.m3FJqsQq011333@smtp1.infomaniak.ch>

Dear all, 

 

Find attached for your information the provisional agenda of an official
roundtable taking place in the programme of the UNCTAD XII Conference in
Accra on 24 April 2008 (10.00-13.00). The theme is Harnessing Knowledge and
Technology for Development. As you will see in the description it includes
and ICT4D component.

 

Is there any you on this list who is planning to take part in this event? If
so, feel free to come back to me.

 

Best, 

 

Ph 

 

Philippe Dam
CONGO - Information Society &
Human Rights Coordinator
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <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/c0f10386/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Programme RT 5 14 April 08.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 79360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/c0f10386/attachment.doc>
-------------- 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 16:08:39 2008
From: wsis at ngocongo.org (CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:08:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] TR: Press release: UN appoints new members to the
 global alliance on ICT
Message-ID: <200804152007.m3FK7Xg5001329@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>

 

Dear all, 

 

Find below the nominations of the UN SG concerning the renewed membership of
the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee.

This renewed team will work in the perspective of the GAID Kuala Lumpur
meeting.

Civil Society is highlighted in bold in the Stereing Committee list.

 

Steering Committee (2008-2009)

 

 

1.	Mrs. Gloria Bonder, UNESCO Regional Chair on Women, Science and
Technology in Latin America, Argentina
2.	Mrs. Jennifer Corriero, TakingITGlobal, Canada
3.	Mr. Ramón A. Garza, Índigo Media, Mexico
4.	Mr. Mohsen A. Khalil, World Bank
5.	Mr. Abdul W. Khan, UNESCO
6.	Mr. Thierno Ousmane Sy, Senegal
7.	Mr. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization, Egypt
8.	Mr. Craig Barrett, Intel Corporation, United States - Chairman
9.	Mrs. Renate Bloem, Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
10.	Mr. Fust Walter, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,
Switzerland
11.	H.E. Mr. Maximus Ongkili, Minister of Science, Technology &
Innovation,Malaysia
12.	Mr. Guy Sebban, International Chamber of Commerce
13.	Mr. Carl-Henric Svanberg, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sweden
14.	Dr. Hamadoun Touré, International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
15.	Mr. Sha Zukang / Mr. Sarbuland Khan (ex officio)

 

Strategy Council (2008-2010)

 


Governments

Private Sector

Civil Society

International Organizations


1.	Afghanistan
2.	Armenia
3.	Azerbaijan
4.	Bahamas
5.	Brazil
6.	Canada
7.	China
8.	Croatia
9.	Cuba
10.	Dominican Republic
11.	Egypt
12.	Finland
13.	France
14.	Gambia
15.	Germany
16.	Ghana 
17.	India
18.	Italy 
19.	Jordan
20.	Lithuania
21.	Madagascar
22.	Mexico 
23.	Nigeria
24.	Pakistan
25.	Qatar
26.	Republic of Korea
27.	Russia
28.	Rwanda
29.	South Africa
30.	Syria
31.	Tunisia
32.	Vietnam

1.	Mr. Ibrahim Adel, Zain, Kuwait
2.	Mr. Roger Cochetti, Computing Technology Industry Association
(CompTIA), United States
3.	Mr. Peter Hellmonds, Nokia Siemens Networks, Germany
4.	Mr. Johan F. Khairuddin, Astro Entertainment SDN BHD, Malaysia
5.	Mr. Jeffrey M. Nick, EMC Corporation, United States
6.	Mr. Carlo Ottaviani, STMicroelectronics Foundation, Switzerland
7.	Mrs. Pamela Passman, Microsoft, United States
8.	Mr. Tom Phillips, GSM Association, United Kingdom
9.	Mr. Arthur Reilly, Cisco Systems, United States
10.	Mr. Peter R. Tinoco, Fundación Cisneros, Venezuela/United States
11.	Representative from IBM

1.	Ms. Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Global Knowledge Partnership, Malaysia
2.	Mr. Peter Bruck, World Summit Award, Austria
3.	Ms. Clotilde Fonseca, Fundacion Omar Dengo, Costa Rica
4.	Ms. Qiheng Hu, Internet Society of China
5.	Mr. Hiroshi Kawamura, The DAISY Consortium, Japan
6.	Ms. Viola Krebs, ICVolunteers, Switzerland
7.	Mrs. Janet Longmore, Digital Opportunity Trust (DOT), Canada
8.	Ms. Dorothy Okello, Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET), Uganda
9.	Mr. Bazlur Rahman, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and
Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh
10.	Mr. Abdulaziz Sager, Gulf Research Center, Dubai U.A.E.
11.	Mr. Asad U. Shah/Mr. Bradford Kane, International Commission on
Workforce Development, United States
12.	Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change, India

1.	European Commission
2.	Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
3.	International Labour Office (ILO)
4.	International Trade Centre
5.	NABE (International Observatory for Strategic Innovation)
6.	Organisation internationale de la Francophonie
7.	Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
8.	Special Unit for South-South Cooperation (SU/SSC) – UNDP
9.	United Nations: DESA, UNCTAD, DPI, OCHA, UNFIP, Regional Commissions
10.	World Health Organization

 

>From the recommendation of the civil society recommendation process for the
Strategy Council Membership, it appears that half of our recommended
candidates have been taken in the UN SG recommendation (Ms. Viola Krebs and
Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh).

 

Best, 

 

Philippe

 

 

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Serge Kapto
Envoyé : mardi, 15. avril 2008 15:14
Objet : [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new members to the
globalalliance on ICT

 

MEDIAINFO-DPI/NY/UNO 

10/04/2008 02:19 PM

 

To

 

cc

 

Subject

UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

 

 

 

 

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

        UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

 

United Nations, 09 APRIL –The United Nations announced today the 

appointment of new members to the Global Alliance for Information and 

Communications Technology and Development (GAID). 

The new members replace the members of the GAID Steering Committee and 

Strategy Council hosted by the United Nations Department of Economic and 

Social Affairs. The new members will carry on the strategic work towards 

achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ICT policies as laid 

out by the outgoing members.

The new members were selected through international consultation with all 

stakeholder groups to ensure a balance in gender, geographical and 

institutional representation. The new membership was approved by Mr. 

Zukang Sha, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, whose 

Department (UNDESA) oversees the operations of GAID. 

The composition of the Steering Committee has been expanded from 12 to 15 

and the Strategy Council from 60 to 65, with the new members poised to 

reflect the growing interest and recognition of the role of ICT in the 

development and the rising profile of GAID. 

The function of the Steering Committee is to provide overall guidance for 

GAID and to help define the medium and long-term priorities along with the 

Strategy Council, as well as to serve the Under-Secretary-General in an 

advisory capacity. For its part, the Strategy Council plays an active role 

in disseminating the results of policy dialogue to a wider audience and in 

promoting and coordinating further partnerships with GAID.

Gloria Bonder (UNESCO Women, Science and Technology in Latin America), 

Jennifer Corriero (TakingITGlobal), Abdul W. Khan (UNESCO), Thierno 

Ousmane Sy (Government of Senegal), Mohsen Khalil (World Bank), and Ramón 

Garza (Índigo Media) are joining the committee this term. Dr. Craig 

Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel, will continue to serve as the 

committee chair through to the Fall of 2009. 

The Strategy Council will be joined by Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas, 

Croatia, Gambia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Syria, and 

Vietnam as new government members; Ibrahim Adel (Zain), Roger Cochetti 

(CompTIA), Johan F. Khairuddin (Astro plc), Tom Phillips (GSM 

Association), Peter Tinoco (Cisneros), and Jeffrey M. Nick (EMC 

Corporation) are representing private sector entities; Clotide Fonseca 

Quesada (Omar Dengo Foundation), Qiheng Hu (Internet Society of China), 

Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), Doroth Okello (WOUGNET), Rinalia Abdul Rahim 

(Global Knowledge Partnership), Abdulaziz Sager (Gulf Research Center), 

Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) are representing civil entities. The 

new members representing other international organizations are Patricia 

Francis (International Trade Centre), Zhou Yiping (UNDP), and the Network 

of Local Authorities for the Information Society (IT4All Bilbao). 

The term of the current membership was extended to coordinate the GAID 

leadership with the upcoming GAID Annual Meeting and Global Forum in Kuala 

Lumpur at the end of May. Over the past year-and-a-half, GAID has 

benefited from the work of the outgoing members whose support and 

engagement have been crucial to ensure GAID’s success. They will continue 

to serve an important and active role as High-level Advisers of the 

Alliance and in promoting information technologies at the service of 

development. 

For more information, please visit http://www.un-gaid.org or contact 

Enrica Murmura of UNDESA- GAID, Tel: +1 212 963 5913, e-mail: 

murmura at un.org 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/3e6ab2f9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: ATT00188.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080415/3e6ab2f9/attachment.txt>
-------------- 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  Tue Apr 15 16:54:41 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:54:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> 
> 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...


Actually, Robert, I respectfully disagree, so I changed the subject line
again! 

Whether or not ISPs change the way they charge for bandwidth is not a
net neutrality (NN) issue by itself. NN only comes into play if ISPs
allocate their bandwidth in ways that _discriminate_ against independent
content and applications providers. 

Note that bandwidth is already "metered" in many ways. You can buy a
slow dial up line, pay more for a DSL service, or pay a lot more money
and get a dedicated OC3 with orders of magnitude more bandwidth. More
money, faster bandwidth. Nothing wrong with that. Bandwidth costs money.

The current debate, however, is about shared bandwidth, when multiple
users are relying on the same capacity. In these cases, usage-sensitive
charging may be employed to make people who use more bandwidth pay more
than people who use less. Think of your electricity meter. Would you
squawk if someone came up with the radical idea that people who consume
vast quantities of electricity should pay more than people who use less?

Usage-sensitive charging policy is not by itself inimical to net
neutrality. In fact, it can help poorer people by making cheaper classes
of service available and it can be an enormous collective good by
discouraging wasteful use -- improving the performance of the network
for everyone. 

Somewhere along the line the net neutrality movement got confused about
the difference between discriminatory bandwidth tiering and rational,
"metered" pricing for bandwidth. They have done themselves a huge
disservice by diverting the focus from discrimination to the idea that
charging more for more bandwidth is "unjust". Fighting against pricing
mechanisms to make bandwidth hogs pay more than smaller users is not in
the public interest. Duh.

Indeed, the strategy is totally counterproductive: if ISPs can't ration
bandwidth using pricing, guess what they will do? They will start
interfering with applications. In fact, they have already done so (like
Comcast and BitTorrent). They will start deciding for users what
applications and content is acceptable and which are not. That's the
Opposite of NN.

ISPs are currently in a flat-rate pricing world for the most part. There
are strong competitive pressures to give users as free a hand at using
the internet as possible (isn't the market economy just awful?). 

The ISPs who complain about the BBC are either too uncreative to come up
with effective pricing policies suitable to the broadband age, or afraid
that if they do so, they will lose customers to ISPs who promise flat
rates and high speeds but deliver slow, crowded service in reality. 

The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and realize
that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit more
and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.

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

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


From J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk  Tue Apr 15 17:01:13 2008
From: J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk (J.A.K.Cave at warwick.ac.uk)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:01:13 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [governance] UK monopoly power, was SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
In-Reply-To: <20080415192543.4726.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.44.0804152156370.4555-100000@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk>

Just a quick note - BT hasn't had a wholesale broadband monopoly for some
time now. This is a *big* difference between the US and the UK. Not only
do we in the UK have a lot of retail ISP choices, but with the advent of
LLU those resellers are getting their transport from many independent
wholsesale providers. Perhaps that's one reason why things like net
neutrality play differently (and less stridently).

Capacity isn't huge and speed remains an issue - but its not down to
monopoly.

J.



On 15 Apr 2008, John Levine wrote:

> >Yes, since BBC introduced its laudable service, a regular/low price DSL
> >connection isn't sufficient anymore at least in my area to watch videos
> >on the net.
>
> My understanding is that this is really an argument between BT and
> other British ISPs about BT's pricing, since BT remains a de-facto
> monopoly for wholesale net access in the UK.
>
> Issues of monopoly power and what to do about it go back to the 19th
> century if not beyond.  It's certainly an important topic, but I don't
> see that it's one on which this group has any particularly deep
> insights.
>
> In this particular case, I'm surprised that the other ISPs don't make
> arrangements to mirror the Beeb's streaming content on their own
> networks.
>
> 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
>

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr 15 17:36:23 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:36:23 -0400
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: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> 
> To give a flavour of a debate yet to come...

Tastes bad. See below

> 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...

Whether you spend money directly from the Treasury or impose costly
obligations on businesses and people, you are still spending money,
reallocating resources. Failure to understand this is quite dangerous to
a society's health. And we always find out, eventually...the hard way. 

[some ranting and rhetorical b.s. cut]

> 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" 
> BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHERE THE INTERNET CAN AND SHOULD BE
"MADE"
> TO GROW.

Ok, so pay careful attention to where we are. The market, you have
conceded, will continue to drive growth for the vast majority of people
and we are only talking about "the margins." (And keep in mind that
technological change and the competitive market can shrink the marginal
areas considerably, so that what was in 1993 unaffordable even for me,
an Assistant Professor in the USA -- mobile phone service -- is now
affordable for everyone in my family, virtually all college students and
a sizable segment of the Chinese and Indian populations. So what are we
arguing about?  

Simply this: I prefer to call the decision to redistribute a reasonable
amount of wealth to people on the margins of the infrastructure to
achieve meaningful expansions of access a "policy". You prefer to call
it a "Right." 

The problem with your approach is that the billions of people who can
afford to pay for access and who are not on the margins might ask why
they need to pay for a "right" that others don't have to pay for. Maybe
the subsidy expands where there is no need for it. That in turn can
undermine the more efficient expansion of access that would take place
naturally. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 18:31:23 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:31:23 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD901820BD9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <048a01c89ea6$22b38810$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804151531o41098fd6rdd9dd5bf6c6aa0a5@mail.gmail.com>

Milton,

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 12:36 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>  Simply this: I prefer to call the decision to redistribute a reasonable
>  amount of wealth to people on the margins of the infrastructure to
>  achieve meaningful expansions of access a "policy". You prefer to call
>  it a "Right."

I think that the end of the world is nigh, I have found myself in
agreement with you on 3 emails in the last 24 hours!

Since much of the world has some sort of policy set that attempts to
do this, I feel that dressing up what is already in place (with the
exceptions I gave before) with a new name feels like a meaningless
rebranding excercise.

>
>  The problem with your approach is that the billions of people who can
>  afford to pay for access and who are not on the margins might ask why
>  they need to pay for a "right" that others don't have to pay for.

In addition, folk will get their hopes up when they hear that they
have a new "Right", as I said before;
"It'll just be another empty promise left unfulfilled."

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 15 19:56:45 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:56:45 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <00bc01c89f54$5e3f86f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone believes in that
kind of incantatory market fundamentalism anymore (after Enron, the subprime
meltdown, the US at #17 in the BB tables and falling...

So the question becomes on what basis do we respond to what seems to be the
general realization that access/use of the Internet is (or at least is
becoming) fundamental to being an active and effective participant in modern
life.  

It could be left to policy but unfortunately policy is subject to the
vagaries of politics.  And thus enforcement of the making available of these
opportunities is left to the happenstance of the political process which as
we can see in certain jurisdictions currently might be a very risky strategy
indeed... 

"Rights" of course have stronger mechanisms for enforcement behind them.
Whether having access to the Internet is of sufficient (and fundemental)
significance to warrant being a "right" is something to discuss... 

But suggesting leaving the whole matter to whatever shows up after the
market has done its "magic" is to belie any knowledge of history, any
experience of the real economic and social world and dare I say, even common
sense.

MG
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
> 
> To give a flavour of a debate yet to come...

Tastes bad. See below

> 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...

Whether you spend money directly from the Treasury or impose costly
obligations on businesses and people, you are still spending money,
reallocating resources. Failure to understand this is quite dangerous to a
society's health. And we always find out, eventually...the hard way. 

[some ranting and rhetorical b.s. cut]

> 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"
> BECOME EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND WHERE THE INTERNET CAN AND SHOULD BE
"MADE"
> TO GROW.

Ok, so pay careful attention to where we are. The market, you have conceded,
will continue to drive growth for the vast majority of people and we are
only talking about "the margins." (And keep in mind that technological
change and the competitive market can shrink the marginal areas
considerably, so that what was in 1993 unaffordable even for me, an
Assistant Professor in the USA -- mobile phone service -- is now affordable
for everyone in my family, virtually all college students and a sizable
segment of the Chinese and Indian populations. So what are we arguing about?


Simply this: I prefer to call the decision to redistribute a reasonable
amount of wealth to people on the margins of the infrastructure to achieve
meaningful expansions of access a "policy". You prefer to call it a "Right."


The problem with your approach is that the billions of people who can afford
to pay for access and who are not on the margins might ask why they need to
pay for a "right" that others don't have to pay for. Maybe the subsidy
expands where there is no need for it. That in turn can undermine the more
efficient expansion of access that would take place naturally. 

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

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


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Tue Apr 15 21:20:12 2008
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:20:12 +0200
Subject: [governance] UK monopoly power, was SHOULD BANDWIDTH BE METERED?
In-Reply-To: <20080415192543.4726.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080415192543.4726.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <4805544C.5090606@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

John Levine schrieb:
>> Yes, since BBC introduced its laudable service, a regular/low price
>> DSL connection isn't sufficient anymore at least in my area to watch
>> videos on the net.

> In this particular case, I'm surprised that the other ISPs don't make 
> arrangements to mirror the Beeb's streaming content on their own 
> networks.
This is exactly what some think the recent Comcast-Bittorrent Inc. deal is 
about: The costs don't come from selling DSL lines to end customers, but 
from peering the uplink traffic across network boundaries. And then it 
might become a network Neutrality issue. If they mirror only traffic from 
/specific/ applications or sources, like the BBC, the ISPs have to monitor 
the traffic closely and make decisions about application layer issues.
See <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080331/185542711.shtml> for the whole 
argument.

Best, Ralf

BTW: My new position and research project: 
<http://bendrath.blogspot.com/2008/04/deep-packet-inspection-or-end-of-net-as.html>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Wed Apr 16 03:50:19 2008
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:50:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new
 members to the global  alliance on ICT
References: <004601c89f23$71b024a0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <008e01c89f96$8688eb50$0b01a8c0@PCbureau>

Despite I'm not a fierce supporter of GAID, I warmly congratulate Viola and 
Parminder who -among others- will repesent the CS engaged in "bridging the 
communication gap" between rich nations and developing countries.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:06 PM
Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new 
members to the global alliance on ICT


Of particular interest in this context is the appointment of Parminder to
the Strategy Council of the GAID (Congratulations Parminder!).

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] On
Behalf Of Serge Kapto
Sent: April 15, 2008 7:14 AM
To: discuss at un-gaid.org
Subject: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new members to the global
alliance on ICT

MEDIAINFO-DPI/NY/UNO
10/04/2008 02:19 PM

To

cc

Subject
UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

PRESS RELEASE

        UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT

United Nations, 09 APRIL -The United Nations announced today the
appointment of new members to the Global Alliance for Information and
Communications Technology and Development (GAID).
The new members replace the members of the GAID Steering Committee and
Strategy Council hosted by the United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs. The new members will carry on the strategic work towards
achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ICT policies as laid
out by the outgoing members.
The new members were selected through international consultation with all
stakeholder groups to ensure a balance in gender, geographical and
institutional representation. The new membership was approved by Mr.
Zukang Sha, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, whose
Department (UNDESA) oversees the operations of GAID.
The composition of the Steering Committee has been expanded from 12 to 15
and the Strategy Council from 60 to 65, with the new members poised to
reflect the growing interest and recognition of the role of ICT in the
development and the rising profile of GAID.
The function of the Steering Committee is to provide overall guidance for
GAID and to help define the medium and long-term priorities along with the
Strategy Council, as well as to serve the Under-Secretary-General in an
advisory capacity. For its part, the Strategy Council plays an active role
in disseminating the results of policy dialogue to a wider audience and in
promoting and coordinating further partnerships with GAID. Gloria Bonder
(UNESCO Women, Science and Technology in Latin America),
Jennifer Corriero (TakingITGlobal), Abdul W. Khan (UNESCO), Thierno
Ousmane Sy (Government of Senegal), Mohsen Khalil (World Bank), and Ramón
Garza (Índigo Media) are joining the committee this term. Dr. Craig
Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel, will continue to serve as the
committee chair through to the Fall of 2009.
The Strategy Council will be joined by Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas,
Croatia, Gambia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Syria, and
Vietnam as new government members; Ibrahim Adel (Zain), Roger Cochetti
(CompTIA), Johan F. Khairuddin (Astro plc), Tom Phillips (GSM
Association), Peter Tinoco (Cisneros), and Jeffrey M. Nick (EMC
Corporation) are representing private sector entities; Clotide Fonseca
Quesada (Omar Dengo Foundation), Qiheng Hu (Internet Society of China),
Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), Doroth Okello (WOUGNET), Rinalia Abdul Rahim
(Global Knowledge Partnership), Abdulaziz Sager (Gulf Research Center),
Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) are representing civil entities. The
new members representing other international organizations are Patricia
Francis (International Trade Centre), Zhou Yiping (UNDP), and the Network
of Local Authorities for the Information Society (IT4All Bilbao).
The term of the current membership was extended to coordinate the GAID
leadership with the upcoming GAID Annual Meeting and Global Forum in Kuala
Lumpur at the end of May. Over the past year-and-a-half, GAID has
benefited from the work of the outgoing members whose support and
engagement have been crucial to ensure GAID's success. They will continue
to serve an important and active role as High-level Advisers of the
Alliance and in promoting information technologies at the service of
development.
For more information, please visit http://www.un-gaid.org or contact
Enrica Murmura of UNDESA- GAID, Tel: +1 212 963 5913, e-mail:
murmura at un.org


!DSPAM:2676,4804b54a227568588215668!
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé12743 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Apr 16 04:42:09 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:42:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <00bc01c89f54$5e3f86f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <00bc01c89f54$5e3f86f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804160142q5b4416cdofb81532fc460b34d@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone believes in that
>  kind of incantatory market fundamentalism

Tell that to the 4 new providers here in Uganda who have invested
hundreds of millions of USD only after the end of our duopoly.

<snip>

>  Whether having access to the Internet is of sufficient (and fundemental)
>  significance to warrant being a "right" is something to discuss...

but that's not what is being posited, this is:

"'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)."

Which IMO, we already have, hence my objection, after all, it seems
silly to me to demand something one already has.

>
>  But suggesting leaving the whole matter to whatever shows up after the
>  market has done its "magic" is to belie any knowledge of history, any
>  experience of the real economic and social world and dare I say, even common
>  sense.

This is your suggestion, not mine.  Historically, in this very real
economic and
social location, our experience is that the PS working within the government
policy framework has increased teledensity dramatically.  For me, the *magic*
is the improvement in the lives of folk who gain the ability to
tele-communicate.

-- 
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 ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Wed Apr 16 05:05:20 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:05:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new
 members to the global alliance on ICT
In-Reply-To: <008e01c89f96$8688eb50$0b01a8c0@PCbureau>
References: <004601c89f23$71b024a0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
	 <008e01c89f96$8688eb50$0b01a8c0@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804160205q441052d0jd9e547c0fbc9077@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations to the new Representives, and to Civil Spciety as well, for
the welcomed CS representation at the table. .

With best wishes, LDMF.


On 4/16/08, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Despite I'm not a fierce supporter of GAID, I warmly congratulate Viola
> and Parminder who -among others- will repesent the CS engaged in "bridging
> the communication gap" between rich nations and developing countries.
> Best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 8:06 PM
> Subject: [governance] FW: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new
> members to the global alliance on ICT
>
>
> Of particular interest in this context is the appointment of Parminder to
> the Strategy Council of the GAID (Congratulations Parminder!).
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at un-gaid.org] On
> Behalf Of Serge Kapto
> Sent: April 15, 2008 7:14 AM
> To: discuss at un-gaid.org
> Subject: [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new members to the
> global
> alliance on ICT
>
> MEDIAINFO-DPI/NY/UNO
> 10/04/2008 02:19 PM
>
> To
>
> cc
>
> Subject
> UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT
>
> PRESS RELEASE
>
>       UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT
>
> United Nations, 09 APRIL -The United Nations announced today the
> appointment of new members to the Global Alliance for Information and
> Communications Technology and Development (GAID).
> The new members replace the members of the GAID Steering Committee and
> Strategy Council hosted by the United Nations Department of Economic and
> Social Affairs. The new members will carry on the strategic work towards
> achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ICT policies as laid
> out by the outgoing members.
> The new members were selected through international consultation with all
> stakeholder groups to ensure a balance in gender, geographical and
> institutional representation. The new membership was approved by Mr.
> Zukang Sha, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, whose
> Department (UNDESA) oversees the operations of GAID.
> The composition of the Steering Committee has been expanded from 12 to 15
> and the Strategy Council from 60 to 65, with the new members poised to
> reflect the growing interest and recognition of the role of ICT in the
> development and the rising profile of GAID.
> The function of the Steering Committee is to provide overall guidance for
> GAID and to help define the medium and long-term priorities along with the
> Strategy Council, as well as to serve the Under-Secretary-General in an
> advisory capacity. For its part, the Strategy Council plays an active role
> in disseminating the results of policy dialogue to a wider audience and in
> promoting and coordinating further partnerships with GAID. Gloria Bonder
> (UNESCO Women, Science and Technology in Latin America),
> Jennifer Corriero (TakingITGlobal), Abdul W. Khan (UNESCO), Thierno
> Ousmane Sy (Government of Senegal), Mohsen Khalil (World Bank), and Ramón
> Garza (Índigo Media) are joining the committee this term. Dr. Craig
> Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel, will continue to serve as the
> committee chair through to the Fall of 2009.
> The Strategy Council will be joined by Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas,
> Croatia, Gambia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Syria, and
> Vietnam as new government members; Ibrahim Adel (Zain), Roger Cochetti
> (CompTIA), Johan F. Khairuddin (Astro plc), Tom Phillips (GSM
> Association), Peter Tinoco (Cisneros), and Jeffrey M. Nick (EMC
> Corporation) are representing private sector entities; Clotide Fonseca
> Quesada (Omar Dengo Foundation), Qiheng Hu (Internet Society of China),
> Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), Doroth Okello (WOUGNET), Rinalia Abdul Rahim
> (Global Knowledge Partnership), Abdulaziz Sager (Gulf Research Center),
> Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) are representing civil entities. The
> new members representing other international organizations are Patricia
> Francis (International Trade Centre), Zhou Yiping (UNDP), and the Network
> of Local Authorities for the Information Society (IT4All Bilbao).
> The term of the current membership was extended to coordinate the GAID
> leadership with the upcoming GAID Annual Meeting and Global Forum in Kuala
> Lumpur at the end of May. Over the past year-and-a-half, GAID has
> benefited from the work of the outgoing members whose support and
> engagement have been crucial to ensure GAID's success. They will continue
> to serve an important and active role as High-level Advisers of the
> Alliance and in promoting information technologies at the service of
> development.
> For more information, please visit http://www.un-gaid.org or contact
> Enrica Murmura of UNDESA- GAID, Tel: +1 212 963 5913, e-mail:
> murmura at un.org
>
>
> !DSPAM:2676,4804b54a227568588215668!
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> --
> J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
> Ce programme a supprimé12743 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
> Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
> Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici:
> http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/04e6aa26/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 16 05:34:38 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:34:38 -0400
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: <45ed74050804160234x692b5deei4d248038680bd3bb@mail.gmail.com>

Greetings,

And on the matter of "given entitities", it seems likely that some sort of *
jurisprudence* (just in the sense what seems fair and what seems possible)
may well underlie claims of what is due all persons in a culture or
pan-culture.

*Jurisprudence* usually attaches, one might say, to an *ontology* - a *belief
system* surrounding what is posited as existing.  Yes, that is a rough
sketch.

But it is interesting to think of *rights and dut*ies in terms of what
exists, that  is believed to exist, or claimed to exist.

Since some may or do argue for a difference between what natively exists
such as water and what is built such as a communications network,.  it may
be useful to have a foundational reference e.g. to Maslow's hierarchy of
motivating factors (needs).

Here is a colorful if undetailed representation:
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm

We might say the present and ongoing discussion favors seeing the t Internet
as at the basic subsistence level ("Survival") rather than the proportional
(luxury?) "level" of self-actualization.  I use the phrase "luxury" with
caution here, having worked with Maslow and I think he did not like that
word, all levels in his model being ostensibly of equal value though at
different stages of developing systems. .

Respectfully and with very best wishes,  LDMF.
 - Show quoted text -

On 4/14/08, 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".
>
>
>
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.

n 4/14/08, 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".
>
>
>
> 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
> ***********************************************************
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


t).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/c41b66b9/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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Wed Apr 16 05:59:39 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:59:39 -0400
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com>

Robert Guerra wrote:
> 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...
How? Isn't this just pricing? We have some ISPs that offer unlimited 
bandwidth, some that offer transfer limits, with more data transfer for 
more $$, but they are all neutral as to the content that you 
send/receive and who you are. I know that my mobile internet (unlimited 
data at home) is very much metered in the US (when I checked email on my 
cell phone in JFK airport, I got data charges by the kb)
Jacqueline


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

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


From jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Wed Apr 16 06:04:49 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:04:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4805CF41.5040302@jacquelinemorris.com>

Hi Milton
Totally agree.
Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>
>> 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...
>>     
>
>
> Actually, Robert, I respectfully disagree, so I changed the subject line
> again! 
>
> Whether or not ISPs change the way they charge for bandwidth is not a
> net neutrality (NN) issue by itself. NN only comes into play if ISPs
> allocate their bandwidth in ways that _discriminate_ against independent
> content and applications providers. 
>
> Note that bandwidth is already "metered" in many ways. You can buy a
> slow dial up line, pay more for a DSL service, or pay a lot more money
> and get a dedicated OC3 with orders of magnitude more bandwidth. More
> money, faster bandwidth. Nothing wrong with that. Bandwidth costs money.
>
> The current debate, however, is about shared bandwidth, when multiple
> users are relying on the same capacity. In these cases, usage-sensitive
> charging may be employed to make people who use more bandwidth pay more
> than people who use less. Think of your electricity meter. Would you
> squawk if someone came up with the radical idea that people who consume
> vast quantities of electricity should pay more than people who use less?
>
> Usage-sensitive charging policy is not by itself inimical to net
> neutrality. In fact, it can help poorer people by making cheaper classes
> of service available and it can be an enormous collective good by
> discouraging wasteful use -- improving the performance of the network
> for everyone. 
>
> Somewhere along the line the net neutrality movement got confused about
> the difference between discriminatory bandwidth tiering and rational,
> "metered" pricing for bandwidth. They have done themselves a huge
> disservice by diverting the focus from discrimination to the idea that
> charging more for more bandwidth is "unjust". Fighting against pricing
> mechanisms to make bandwidth hogs pay more than smaller users is not in
> the public interest. Duh.
>
> Indeed, the strategy is totally counterproductive: if ISPs can't ration
> bandwidth using pricing, guess what they will do? They will start
> interfering with applications. In fact, they have already done so (like
> Comcast and BitTorrent). They will start deciding for users what
> applications and content is acceptable and which are not. That's the
> Opposite of NN.
>
> ISPs are currently in a flat-rate pricing world for the most part. There
> are strong competitive pressures to give users as free a hand at using
> the internet as possible (isn't the market economy just awful?). 
>
> The ISPs who complain about the BBC are either too uncreative to come up
> with effective pricing policies suitable to the broadband age, or afraid
> that if they do so, they will lose customers to ISPs who promise flat
> rates and high speeds but deliver slow, crowded service in reality. 
>
> The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and realize
> that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
> to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit more
> and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 16 06:17:46 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:17:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804160142q5b4416cdofb81532fc460b34d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28FF@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <00bc01c89f54$5e3f86f0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <f65fb55e0804160142q5b4416cdofb81532fc460b34d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2916@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone
believes in
> > that kind of incantatory market fundamentalism

No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory
anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society should
have moved beyond in 1991, if not sooner. But old habits die hard, which
is why I make an issue of it on this list.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy interventions in the market
when beneficial. But let's give competitive markets and liberal policies
their due; they've produced dramatic expansions in access and will
continue to do so if handled right. Be intelligent about when you need
to intervene, and how, and when you don't. That's all.  

And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do
everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were? 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Wed Apr 16 06:43:09 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:43:09 +0100
Subject: [governance] TR: Press release: UN appoints new members to the
 global alliance on ICT
In-Reply-To: <200804152007.m3FK7Xg5001329@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
References: <200804152007.m3FK7Xg5001329@smtp2.infomaniak.ch>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804160343t3e0c13acib87bd4cd06f63e20@mail.gmail.com>

To all nomanited,

Congratulations for your engagement.

Baudouin

2008/4/15, CONGO WSIS - Philippe Dam <wsis at ngocongo.org>:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> Find below the nominations of the UN SG concerning the renewed membership
> of the GAID Strategy Council and Steering Committee.
>
> This renewed team will work in the perspective of the GAID Kuala Lumpur
> meeting.
>
> Civil Society is highlighted in bold in the Stereing Committee list.
>
>
>
> *Steering Committee (2008-2009)*
>
>
>
>
>
>    1. *Mrs. Gloria Bonder, UNESCO Regional Chair on Women, Science and
>    Technology in Latin America, Argentina*
>    2. *Mrs. Jennifer Corriero, TakingITGlobal, Canada*
>    3. Mr. Ramón A. Garza, Índigo Media, Mexico
>    4. Mr. Mohsen A. Khalil, World Bank
>    5. Mr. Abdul W. Khan, UNESCO
>    6. Mr. Thierno Ousmane Sy, Senegal
>    7. Mr. Talal Abu-Ghazaleh, Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organization, Egypt
>    8. Mr. Craig Barrett, Intel Corporation, United States - Chairman
>    9. *Mrs. Renate Bloem, Conference of NGOs (CONGO)*
>    10. Mr. Fust Walter, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation,
>    Switzerland
>    11. H.E. Mr. Maximus Ongkili, Minister of Science, Technology &
>    Innovation,Malaysia
>    12. Mr. Guy Sebban, International Chamber of Commerce
>    13. Mr. Carl-Henric Svanberg, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
>    Sweden
>    14. Dr. Hamadoun Touré, International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
>    15. Mr. Sha Zukang / Mr. Sarbuland Khan (ex officio)
>
>
>
> *Strategy Council (2008-2010)*
>
>
>
> *Governments*
>
> *Private Sector*
>
> *Civil Society*
>
> *International Organizations*
>
>    1. Afghanistan
>    2. Armenia
>    3. Azerbaijan
>    4. Bahamas
>    5. Brazil
>    6. Canada
>    7. China
>    8. Croatia
>    9. Cuba
>    10. Dominican Republic
>    11. Egypt
>    12. Finland
>    13. France
>    14. Gambia
>    15. Germany
>    16. Ghana
>    17. India
>    18. Italy
>    19. Jordan
>    20. Lithuania
>    21. Madagascar
>    22. Mexico
>    23. Nigeria
>    24. Pakistan
>    25. Qatar
>    26. Republic of Korea
>    27. Russia
>    28. Rwanda
>    29. South Africa
>    30. Syria
>    31. Tunisia
>    32. Vietnam
>
>
>    1. Mr. Ibrahim Adel, Zain, Kuwait
>    2. Mr. Roger Cochetti, Computing Technology Industry Association
>    (CompTIA), United States
>    3. Mr. Peter Hellmonds, Nokia Siemens Networks, Germany
>    4. Mr. Johan F. Khairuddin, Astro Entertainment SDN BHD, Malaysia
>    5. Mr. Jeffrey M. Nick, EMC Corporation, United States
>    6. Mr. Carlo Ottaviani, STMicroelectronics Foundation, Switzerland
>    7. Mrs. Pamela Passman, Microsoft, United States
>    8. Mr. Tom Phillips, GSM Association, United Kingdom
>    9. Mr. Arthur Reilly, Cisco Systems, United States
>    10. Mr. Peter R. Tinoco, Fundación Cisneros, Venezuela/United States
>    11. Representative from IBM
>
>
>    1. Ms. Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Global Knowledge Partnership, Malaysia
>    2. Mr. Peter Bruck, World Summit Award, Austria
>    3. Ms. Clotilde Fonseca, Fundacion Omar Dengo, Costa Rica
>    4. Ms. Qiheng Hu, Internet Society of China
>    5. Mr. Hiroshi Kawamura, The DAISY Consortium, Japan
>    6. Ms. Viola Krebs, ICVolunteers, Switzerland
>    7. Mrs. Janet Longmore, Digital Opportunity Trust (DOT), Canada
>    8. Ms. Dorothy Okello, Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET), Uganda
>    9. Mr. Bazlur Rahman, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and
>    Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh
>    10. Mr. Abdulaziz Sager, Gulf Research Center, Dubai U.A.E.
>    11. Mr. Asad U. Shah/Mr. Bradford Kane, International Commission on
>    Workforce Development, United States
>    12. Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh, IT for Change, India
>
>
>    1. European Commission
>    2. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
>    3. International Labour Office (ILO)
>    4. International Trade Centre
>    5. NABE (International Observatory for Strategic Innovation)
>    6. Organisation internationale de la Francophonie
>    7. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
>    8. Special Unit for South-South Cooperation (SU/SSC) – UNDP
>    9. United Nations: DESA, UNCTAD, DPI, OCHA, UNFIP, Regional
>    Commissions
>    10. World Health Organization
>
>
>
> From the recommendation of the civil society recommendation process for
> the Strategy Council Membership, it appears that half of our recommended
> candidates have been taken in the UN SG recommendation (Ms. Viola Krebs and
> Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Serge Kapto
> Envoyé : mardi, 15. avril 2008 15:14
> Objet : [gaid-discuss] Press release: UN appoints new members to the
> globalalliance on ICT
>
>
>
> MEDIAINFO-DPI/NY/UNO
>
> 10/04/2008 02:19 PM
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> PRESS RELEASE
>
>
>
>         UN appoints new members to the global alliance on ICT
>
>
>
> United Nations, 09 APRIL –The United Nations announced today the
>
> appointment of new members to the Global Alliance for Information and
>
> Communications Technology and Development (GAID).
>
> The new members replace the members of the GAID Steering Committee and
>
> Strategy Council hosted by the United Nations Department of Economic and
>
> Social Affairs. The new members will carry on the strategic work towards
>
> achieving the Millennium Development Goals through ICT policies as laid
>
> out by the outgoing members.
>
> The new members were selected through international consultation with all
>
> stakeholder groups to ensure a balance in gender, geographical and
>
> institutional representation. The new membership was approved by Mr.
>
> Zukang Sha, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, whose
>
>
> Department (UNDESA) oversees the operations of GAID.
>
> The composition of the Steering Committee has been expanded from 12 to 15
>
> and the Strategy Council from 60 to 65, with the new members poised to
>
> reflect the growing interest and recognition of the role of ICT in the
>
> development and the rising profile of GAID.
>
> The function of the Steering Committee is to provide overall guidance for
>
> GAID and to help define the medium and long-term priorities along with the
>
>
> Strategy Council, as well as to serve the Under-Secretary-General in an
>
> advisory capacity. For its part, the Strategy Council plays an active role
>
>
> in disseminating the results of policy dialogue to a wider audience and in
>
>
> promoting and coordinating further partnerships with GAID.
>
> Gloria Bonder (UNESCO Women, Science and Technology in Latin America),
>
> Jennifer Corriero (TakingITGlobal), Abdul W. Khan (UNESCO), Thierno
>
> Ousmane Sy (Government of Senegal), Mohsen Khalil (World Bank), and Ramón
>
> Garza (Índigo Media) are joining the committee this term. Dr. Craig
>
> Barrett, Chairman of the Board of Intel, will continue to serve as the
>
> committee chair through to the Fall of 2009.
>
> The Strategy Council will be joined by Afghanistan, Armenia, Bahamas,
>
> Croatia, Gambia, Lithuania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Qatar, Rwanda, Syria, and
>
>
> Vietnam as new government members; Ibrahim Adel (Zain), Roger Cochetti
>
> (CompTIA), Johan F. Khairuddin (Astro plc), Tom Phillips (GSM
>
> Association), Peter Tinoco (Cisneros), and Jeffrey M. Nick (EMC
>
> Corporation) are representing private sector entities; Clotide Fonseca
>
> Quesada (Omar Dengo Foundation), Qiheng Hu (Internet Society of China),
>
> Viola Krebs (ICVolunteers), Doroth Okello (WOUGNET), Rinalia Abdul Rahim
>
> (Global Knowledge Partnership), Abdulaziz Sager (Gulf Research Center),
>
> Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change) are representing civil entities. The
>
> new members representing other international organizations are Patricia
>
> Francis (International Trade Centre), Zhou Yiping (UNDP), and the Network
>
> of Local Authorities for the Information Society (IT4All Bilbao).
>
> The term of the current membership was extended to coordinate the GAID
>
> leadership with the upcoming GAID Annual Meeting and Global Forum in Kuala
>
>
> Lumpur at the end of May. Over the past year-and-a-half, GAID has
>
> benefited from the work of the outgoing members whose support and
>
> engagement have been crucial to ensure GAID's success. They will continue
>
> to serve an important and active role as High-level Advisers of the
>
> Alliance and in promoting information technologies at the service of
>
> development.
>
> For more information, please visit http://www.un-gaid.org or contact
>
> Enrica Murmura of UNDESA- GAID, Tel: +1 212 963 5913, e-mail:
>
> murmura at un.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
>
>
>


-- 
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/20080416/262e0ad0/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  Wed Apr 16 09:32:06 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:32:06 -0300
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com>
Message-ID: <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>

Wow, wonderful ISPs you have, Jacqueline!

Here in BR the main backbone operators, which are also the providers of 
broadband to home, monitor/censor/retard packets at will, depending on 
how they affect their interests (as they are conglomerates selling both 
connectivity and content).

I cannot watch Joost or any other IPTV service which does not belong to 
the cable company, for example, in my 8 Mb/s cable modem link (random 
interruptions), cannot run an ftp or mail server, or even a plain Web 
server on my end of the link using standard ports etc -- in summary, 
they arbitrarily decide which packets you can send/receive, and how. The 
link itself is excellent -- I just downloaded a full Ubuntu CD in less 
than 20 minutes (they seem to like Ubuntu ;)).

In short, they interfere with content, and this is not anywhere in the 
contract. The contract says (in euphemistic words) that they will sell 
more bandwidth than they can cope with and the user should not expect to 
get the full up/down nominal speeds specified in the contract. But it 
does not even suggest you cannot try to use the full nominal bandwidth 
specified in the contract.

In short, again, a flurry of consumer rights' violations.

--c.a.

Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
> Robert Guerra wrote:
>> 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...
> How? Isn't this just pricing? We have some ISPs that offer unlimited 
> bandwidth, some that offer transfer limits, with more data transfer for 
> more $$, but they are all neutral as to the content that you 
> send/receive and who you are. I know that my mobile internet (unlimited 
> data at home) is very much metered in the US (when I checked email on my 
> cell phone in JFK airport, I got data charges by the kb)
> Jacqueline
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed Apr 16 09:35:35 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:35:35 +0100
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
 <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
 <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com>
 <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20080416133541.650D23C11F1@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi

i haven't read the thread on this.. but, to quote ca

>In short, again, a flurry of consumer rights' violations.

i think this issue is a prefect one to bring in the consumer rights 
groups - a community we've not really managed to draw into the IGF 
process, but a very important potential ally in our work..

karen

At 14:32 16/04/2008, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Wow, wonderful ISPs you have, Jacqueline!
>
>Here in BR the main backbone operators, which are also the providers 
>of broadband to home, monitor/censor/retard packets at will, 
>depending on how they affect their interests (as they are 
>conglomerates selling both connectivity and content).
>
>I cannot watch Joost or any other IPTV service which does not belong 
>to the cable company, for example, in my 8 Mb/s cable modem link 
>(random interruptions), cannot run an ftp or mail server, or even a 
>plain Web server on my end of the link using standard ports etc -- 
>in summary, they arbitrarily decide which packets you can 
>send/receive, and how. The link itself is excellent -- I just 
>downloaded a full Ubuntu CD in less than 20 minutes (they seem to 
>like Ubuntu ;)).
>
>In short, they interfere with content, and this is not anywhere in 
>the contract. The contract says (in euphemistic words) that they 
>will sell more bandwidth than they can cope with and the user should 
>not expect to get the full up/down nominal speeds specified in the 
>contract. But it does not even suggest you cannot try to use the 
>full nominal bandwidth specified in the contract.
>
>In short, again, a flurry of consumer rights' violations.
>
>--c.a.
>
>Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>>Robert Guerra wrote:
>>>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...
>>How? Isn't this just pricing? We have some ISPs that offer 
>>unlimited bandwidth, some that offer transfer limits, with more 
>>data transfer for more $$, but they are all neutral as to the 
>>content that you send/receive and who you are. I know that my 
>>mobile internet (unlimited data at home) is very much metered in 
>>the US (when I checked email on my cell phone in JFK airport, I got 
>>data charges by the kb)
>>Jacqueline
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20080416/66c69bec/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  Wed Apr 16 11:47:03 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:47:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804160142q5b4416cdofb81532fc460b34d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016701c89fd9$289cbf60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

McTim,

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 16, 2008 1:42 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone believes 
> in that  kind of incantatory market fundamentalism

Tell that to the 4 new providers here in Uganda who have invested hundreds
of millions of USD only after the end of our duopoly.

SO...



<snip>

>  Whether having access to the Internet is of sufficient (and 
> fundemental)  significance to warrant being a "right" is something to 
> discuss...

but that's not what is being posited, this is:

"'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)."

Which IMO, we already have, hence my objection, after all, it seems silly to
me to demand something one already has.

THOSE ARE PARMINDER'S WORDS NOT MINE AND SINCE HE IS MOST CERTAINLY ABLE
(AND EVEN OCCASIONALLY WILLING ;-) TO DEFEND HIS WORDS I'LL LEAVE THIS TO
HIM... (I AGREE WITH HIM ON THIS BUT WHETHER I WOULD INCLUDE THESE ELEMENTS
AT THIS STAGE I'LL LEAVE TO HIM TO DISCUSS...


>
>  But suggesting leaving the whole matter to whatever shows up after 
> the  market has done its "magic" is to belie any knowledge of history, 
> any  experience of the real economic and social world and dare I say, 
> even common  sense.

This is your suggestion, not mine.  Historically, in this very real economic
and social location, our experience is that the PS working within the
government policy framework has increased teledensity dramatically.  For me,
the *magic* is the improvement in the lives of folk who gain the ability to
tele-communicate.

I'M PLEASED THAT THIS IS HAPPENING OF COURSE, AND THAT THERE ARE PROFITABLE
MARKETS IN UGANDA TO DRIVE THE EXTENSION OF THE INTERNET. I'M ASSUMING ALSO
OF COURSE BY WHAT YOU SAY THAT THOSE LIVING IN UGANDA WILL, WITHIN THE NEXT
POLICY CYCLE OR SO AND AS A RESULT OF THESE PROCESSES HAVE UNIVERAL ACCESS,
AFFORDABLE BY ALL TO THE RANGE OF INTERNET SERVICES. (BTW MY GUESS IS THAT
IT WILL BE A MASSIVE JOB SINCE THE CURRENT INTERNET PENETRATION RATE IN
UGANDA IS 0.8%) AND WILL THUS BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A MODEL TO THE REST OF
AFRICA WHERE INTERNET PENETRATION RATES NOW I BELIEVE HOVER AT SOMEWHERE
BELOW 5%.

AND TO FORESTALL WHAT I'M ASSUMING WILL BE YOUR NEXT RIPOSTE, I COMPLETELY
AGREE THAT OPENING THE MARKET TO ADDITIONAL SUPPLIERS WOULD/WILL MEAN THAT
THESE NUMBERS WILL INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY AS A RESULT OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT
AND MARKET COMPETITION.  

AN APPROPRIATE RIGHTS DRIVEN POLICY APPROACH IN AREAS SUCH AS AFRICA OVERALL
WHERE INTERNET RATES ARE SO MASSIVELY BELOW THE NORM SHOULD LIKLEY INCLUDE
THE REMOVAL OF BARRIERS TO MARKET ENTRY AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT (I'M ASSUMING
INCLUDING FPI) PRECISELY AS A WAY OF ENABLING AN AT LEAST PARTIAL
REALIZATION OF THE "RIGHT"... 

HOW THAT REALIZATION MIGHT BE EXTENDED TO THE POOR, TO RURAL AREAS, TO THOSE
WITH LOW LEVELS OF LITERACY, TO THOSE WITH VARIOUS FORMS OF DISABILITY AND
SO ON, WOULD I WOULD EXPECT REQUIRE OTHER FORMS OF POLICY ENABLEMENT AND
NON-MARKET BASED INTERVENTIONS. BUT UNLESS WE CAN ASSUME THAT THEY WILL BE
AMONG THOSE WHO WILL SEE "the improvement in the lives of folk who gain the
ability to tele-communicate". 

HOWEVER, AS IS MOST LIKELY GIVEN THE EXPERIENCE EVERYWHERE ELSE, THE PRIVATE
SECTOR FOLKS WILL PROVIDE SERVICE TO THOSE WHO ARE ABLE TO RETURN THE MOST
PROFIT TO THEIR INVESTMENT AND LEAVE THE OTHERS FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO SERVE
(NOTHING WRONG WITH THOSE FOLKS GETTING A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, BUT
ARE WE SURE THAT ROI IS THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH WE BELIEVE INTERNET SERVICE
SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE).

MG

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 16 11:47:03 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:47:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2916@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <016a01c89fd9$2d0f34b0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory
anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society should
have moved beyond in 1991 1930, if not sooner. But old habits die hard,
which is why I make an issue of it on this list.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy market interventions in the market
in support of public policy goods when beneficial. But let's I'll give
competitive markets and liberal policies their due; they've produced
dramatic expansions in access and will continue to do so if handled right.
Be intelligent about when you need to intervene, and how, and when you
don't. That's all.  

And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do
everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?

(well I guess we are closer to consensus than I figured after all ;-)

MG 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: April 16, 2008 3:18 AM
To: McTim; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet



> -----Original Message-----
> 
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone
believes in
> > that kind of incantatory market fundamentalism

No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory
anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society should
have moved beyond in 1991, if not sooner. But old habits die hard, which is
why I make an issue of it on this list.

I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy interventions in the market when
beneficial. But let's give competitive markets and liberal policies their
due; they've produced dramatic expansions in access and will continue to do
so if handled right. Be intelligent about when you need to intervene, and
how, and when you don't. That's all.  

And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do
everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/6d471f69/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  Wed Apr 16 12:00:17 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:00:17 +0300
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <016701c89fd9$289cbf60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <f65fb55e0804160142q5b4416cdofb81532fc460b34d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <016701c89fd9$289cbf60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804160900p34cb724ak2239ada70d849e3d@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
> McTim,

<snip>

>  (NOTHING WRONG WITH THOSE FOLKS GETTING A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, BUT
>  ARE WE SURE THAT ROI IS THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH WE BELIEVE INTERNET SERVICE
>  SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE).

What makes you think it is, or that I think it is?  That's certainly
not the case for my ISP!

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 16 13:21:37 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:21:37 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <45ed74050804160234x692b5deei4d248038680bd3bb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01c701c89fe6$58c26b10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

A very elegant formulation! Thanks very much Linda.
 
BTW, I can see the beginnings of a most interesting and fruitful Workshop
discussion already emerging in our back and forth on this list. 
 
And yes, thank you for the suggestion Parminder, I'm willing to (co?)
co-ordinate the Working Group towards a "Right to the Internet" Workshop at
the IGF should such be agreed to within this forum.
 
MG
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On
Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff
Sent: April 16, 2008 2:35 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet



Greetings,
 
And on the matter of "given entitities", it seems likely that some sort of
jurisprudence (just in the sense what seems fair and what seems possible)
may well underlie claims of what is due all persons in a culture or
pan-culture. 
 
Jurisprudence usually attaches, one might say, to an ontology - a belief
system surrounding what is posited as existing.  Yes, that is a rough
sketch.
 
But it is interesting to think of rights and duties in terms of what exists,
that  is believed to exist, or claimed to exist.
 
Since some may or do argue for a difference between what natively exists
such as water and what is built such as a communications network,.  it may
be useful to have a foundational reference e.g. to Maslow's hierarchy of
motivating factors (needs).
 
Here is a colorful if undetailed representation:
http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
 
We might say the present and ongoing discussion favors seeing the t Internet
as at the basic subsistence level ("Survival") rather than the proportional
(luxury?) "level" of self-actualization.  I use the phrase "luxury" with
caution here, having worked with Maslow and I think he did not like that
word, all levels in his model being ostensibly of equal value though at
different stages of developing systems. .
 
Respectfully and with very best wishes,  LDMF. 

- Show quoted text -

 
On 4/14/08, 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".



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
***********************************************************

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





-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.

 
n 4/14/08, 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".



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
***********************************************************

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

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




t). 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/f9dac533/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  Wed Apr 16 13:26:50 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:26:50 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804160900p34cb724ak2239ada70d849e3d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01dc01c89fe7$12aa6dc0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>



That's great McTim,

Then we are agreed ;-)

Best to all,

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 16, 2008 9:00 AM
To: Michael Gurstein
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:
> McTim,

<snip>

>  (NOTHING WRONG WITH THOSE FOLKS GETTING A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, 
> BUT  ARE WE SURE THAT ROI IS THE ONLY BASIS ON WHICH WE BELIEVE 
> INTERNET SERVICE  SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE).

What makes you think it is, or that I think it is?  That's certainly not the
case for my ISP!

-- 
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 garth.graham at telus.net  Wed Apr 16 13:49:52 2008
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:49:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <D53B4BB2-78DF-459F-93B5-601133AB0CA3@telus.net>

On 15-Apr-08, at 1:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and  
> realize
> that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
> to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit  
> more
> and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.

If only!  I am willing to pay a lot more for "good service" (which  
ipso facto includes net neutrality) if it were available to me.  But  
it's not (and I live in an urban area of 450,000 people).  And, in  
Canada, with only 4 prime carriers now being de-regulated in favour  
of "market-based approaches," it isn't going to be.  In the name of  
"customer service," they are going to throttle bandwidth use to avoid  
building adequate capacity into the last mile.  As citizens (not  
customers), it's way past time to "demand" public policy that  
supports municipal ownership of open networks as a commons-based  
public utility.

GG

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

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


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Wed Apr 16 14:42:15 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:42:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <01c701c89fe6$58c26b10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <45ed74050804160234x692b5deei4d248038680bd3bb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <01c701c89fe6$58c26b10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804161142n4491e689g8403ba6312b3c4d9@mail.gmail.com>

Such a broad smile engendered here.  Yes from this e-desk, very interested.
Do a lot with *rights and duties** formulations, a particular fun thing in
law school.  If all that workload was fun.

Thanks Michael, Parminder, *et al.*   Lead the way in the new WG.

:) LDMF.

P.S.

* With particularity here, two very prominent flavors one often encounters:

(1) *Rights* have *Duties* that come with Rights (same actor);

(2) Our *Rights* impose *Duties* on Others (n-actors)  - (not so comfortable
*vice versa* - Others' Rights impose Duties on Us). !!!


On 4/16/08, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   A very elegant formulation! Thanks very much Linda.
>
> BTW, I can see the beginnings of a most interesting and fruitful Workshop
> discussion already emerging in our back and forth on this list.
>
> And yes, thank you for the suggestion Parminder, I'm willing to (co?)
> co-ordinate the Working Group towards a "Right to the Internet" Workshop at
> the IGF should such be agreed to within this forum.
>
> MG
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *linda misek-falkoff
> *Sent:* April 16, 2008 2:35 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
>  Greetings,
>
> And on the matter of "given entitities", it seems likely that some sort of
> *jurisprudence* (just in the sense what seems fair and what seems
> possible)  may well underlie claims of what is due all persons in a culture
> or pan-culture.
>
> *Jurisprudence* usually attaches, one might say, to an *ontology* - a *belief
> system* surrounding what is posited as existing.  Yes, that is a rough
> sketch.
>
> But it is interesting to think of *rights and dut*ies in terms of what
> exists, that  is believed to exist, or claimed to exist.
>
> Since some may or do argue for a difference between what natively exists
> such as water and what is built such as a communications network,.  it may
> be useful to have a foundational reference e.g. to Maslow's hierarchy of
> motivating factors (needs).
>
> Here is a colorful if undetailed representation:
> http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
>
> We might say the present and ongoing discussion favors seeing the t
> Internet as at the basic subsistence level ("Survival") rather than the
> proportional (luxury?) "level" of self-actualization.  I use the phrase
> "luxury" with caution here, having worked with Maslow and I think he did not
> like that word, all levels in his model being ostensibly of equal value
> though at different stages of developing systems. .
>
> Respectfully and with very best wishes,  LDMF.
>  - Show quoted text -
>
> On 4/14/08, 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".
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, 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* Programme.
> Individual e-post.
> For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United
> Nations (CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
> International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
> education, values, and technical committees;
> Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
> Other Affiliations on Request.
>
> n 4/14/08, 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".
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > ***********************************************************
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
>
> t).
>
>



-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080416/8c8d5634/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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Wed Apr 16 14:44:09 2008
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline A. Morris)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:44:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com> <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <480648F9.1020108@jacquelinemorris.com>

Well, we haven't reached the stage of IPTV yet here, and the 2 main 
providers both intend to do that soon, so we will see if they restrict 
content once they have competing content. I hope not. Currently the 
quality of service is so bad (random dropouts, no service for hours at 
times) that they CAN'T provide content yet!
But the question was purely about pricing, as I read it.
Jacqueline

Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Wow, wonderful ISPs you have, Jacqueline!
>
> Here in BR the main backbone operators, which are also the providers 
> of broadband to home, monitor/censor/retard packets at will, depending 
> on how they affect their interests (as they are conglomerates selling 
> both connectivity and content).
>
> I cannot watch Joost or any other IPTV service which does not belong 
> to the cable company, for example, in my 8 Mb/s cable modem link 
> (random interruptions), cannot run an ftp or mail server, or even a 
> plain Web server on my end of the link using standard ports etc -- in 
> summary, they arbitrarily decide which packets you can send/receive, 
> and how. The link itself is excellent -- I just downloaded a full 
> Ubuntu CD in less than 20 minutes (they seem to like Ubuntu ;)).
>
> In short, they interfere with content, and this is not anywhere in the 
> contract. The contract says (in euphemistic words) that they will sell 
> more bandwidth than they can cope with and the user should not expect 
> to get the full up/down nominal speeds specified in the contract. But 
> it does not even suggest you cannot try to use the full nominal 
> bandwidth specified in the contract.
>
> In short, again, a flurry of consumer rights' violations.
>
> --c.a.
>
> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>> Robert Guerra wrote:
>>> 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...
>> How? Isn't this just pricing? We have some ISPs that offer unlimited 
>> bandwidth, some that offer transfer limits, with more data transfer 
>> for more $$, but they are all neutral as to the content that you 
>> send/receive and who you are. I know that my mobile internet 
>> (unlimited data at home) is very much metered in the US (when I 
>> checked email on my cell phone in JFK airport, I got data charges by 
>> the kb)
>> Jacqueline
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 16 15:56:28 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:56:28 -0400
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <016a01c89fd9$2d0f34b0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <016a01c89fd9$2d0f34b0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <1AEFEED1-89B5-45D5-9ABF-0B7B61C8C355@psg.com>

Hi,

not that i want to get n the middle of this 20th century argument, but  
i read an interesting line in a letter to the Editor of the Financial  
Times today (oh no, what am i admitting) by Giulio Tremonti (an  
Italian politician - don't know what his role is thse days) in defense  
of accusations of protectionism:

"market if possible, state if necessary"

Now i don't now if i agree with much of what he says, as his letter is  
all i have ever read of his, but this seems to be a reasonable  
position at first blush.

And in today's world it looks like the market is being effective in  
some places, but some places need more help then the market is likely  
to give.  And since (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your  
viewpoint) we have states and collections of states and associations  
of states ... , they might as well be asked to do something useful for  
the people.

a.



On 16 Apr 2008, at 11:47, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory  
> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society  
> should have moved beyond in 1991 1930, if not sooner. But old habits  
> die hard, which is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy market interventions in  
> the market in support of public policy goods when beneficial. But  
> let's I'll give competitive markets and liberal policies their due;  
> they've produced dramatic expansions in access and will continue to  
> do so if handled right. Be intelligent about when you need to  
> intervene, and how, and when you don't. That's all.
>
> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do  
> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>
> (well I guess we are closer to consensus than I figured after all ;-)
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: April 16, 2008 3:18 AM
> To: McTim; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com 
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone
> believes in
> > > that kind of incantatory market fundamentalism
>
> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory  
> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society  
> should have moved beyond in 1991, if not sooner. But old habits die  
> hard, which is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>
> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy interventions in the  
> market when beneficial. But let's give competitive markets and  
> liberal policies their due; they've produced dramatic expansions in  
> access and will continue to do so if handled right. Be intelligent  
> about when you need to intervene, and how, and when you don't.  
> That's all.
>
> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do  
> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr  Wed Apr 16 17:31:32 2008
From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:31:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
References: <016a01c89fd9$2d0f34b0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <1AEFEED1-89B5-45D5-9ABF-0B7B61C8C355@psg.com>
Message-ID: <005a01c8a009$3eb183f0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau>

Dear Avri
I do hope you know a lot more in economics than in italian politics. 
However, Tremonti is well known and not only by insiders. He was the 
"economist" in both the former Berlusconi's gouvenrments, with the 
"succcess" You (should) know.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" <avri at psg.com>
To: "Governance Caucus" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


> Hi,
>
> not that i want to get n the middle of this 20th century argument, but  i 
> read an interesting line in a letter to the Editor of the Financial  Times 
> today (oh no, what am i admitting) by Giulio Tremonti (an  Italian 
> politician - don't know what his role is thse days) in defense  of 
> accusations of protectionism:
>
> "market if possible, state if necessary"
>
> Now i don't now if i agree with much of what he says, as his letter is 
> all i have ever read of his, but this seems to be a reasonable  position 
> at first blush.
>
> And in today's world it looks like the market is being effective in  some 
> places, but some places need more help then the market is likely  to give. 
> And since (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your  viewpoint) we 
> have states and collections of states and associations  of states ... , 
> they might as well be asked to do something useful for  the people.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2008, at 11:47, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory 
>> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society  should 
>> have moved beyond in 1991 1930, if not sooner. But old habits  die hard, 
>> which is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy market interventions in  the 
>> market in support of public policy goods when beneficial. But  let's I'll 
>> give competitive markets and liberal policies their due;  they've 
>> produced dramatic expansions in access and will continue to  do so if 
>> handled right. Be intelligent about when you need to  intervene, and how, 
>> and when you don't. That's all.
>>
>> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do 
>> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>>
>> (well I guess we are closer to consensus than I figured after all ;-)
>>
>> MG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>> Sent: April 16, 2008 3:18 AM
>> To: McTim; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >  The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone
>> believes in
>> > > that kind of incantatory market fundamentalism
>>
>> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory 
>> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society  should 
>> have moved beyond in 1991, if not sooner. But old habits die  hard, which 
>> is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy interventions in the  market 
>> when beneficial. But let's give competitive markets and  liberal policies 
>> their due; they've produced dramatic expansions in  access and will 
>> continue to do so if handled right. Be intelligent  about when you need 
>> to intervene, and how, and when you don't.  That's all.
>>
>> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do 
>> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé12751 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



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

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


From kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Apr 17 00:56:19 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:56:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] A washingtonpost.com article from: kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk
Message-ID: <3024037.1208408179419.JavaMail.wlogic@webapp3.wpprivate.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080417/253aa606/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  Thu Apr 17 03:11:59 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:11:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] JPA Workshop idea
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2A05@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

I have discussed with Parminder the possibility of working with this
caucus (IGC) in developing the following workshop proposal: 

I have also contacted ICANN about it. 

 

The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

=====================================

ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government through a
Joint Project Agreement (JPA). The current JPA is schedule to expire
September 03, 2009. The JPA and its renewal process provide what, during
WSIS, became known as "political oversight" over ICANN. 

 

The US government says that it is committed to "completing the
transition" to private sector coordination of the Domain Name System, a
policy which implies that the JPA will eventually expire. During the
recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also strongly
supports an end to the JPA and wishes to be a more independent,
internationalized organization. ICANN's call was supported by some
stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
accountability without some kind of governmental oversight. 

 

This workshop is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration
of whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if
so what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it.
Panelists will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's
status and various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on
how to make changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the
status quo will also be represented.

 

Initial (rough) suggestion of panelists: Note: I have not put specific
CS or developing country people below because I want to rely on this
group for suggestions and volunteers. 

 

Please also note that it is essential that the workshop be composed of
people with specific, well-thought out proposals or principles regarding
how the transition should be made. I am not interested, and I doubt
anyone else is, in vague complaining about the JPA or US control without
proposing a better alternative. Panelists should either openly and
explicitly support the status quo or have a specific direction for the
proposed change. Time to fish or cut bait, as we say.

 

ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush

IGP: Milton Mueller

Representative of European Commission

WITSA (multinational business) representative

BRIC country(ies) 

Non-US Internet service provider

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080417/8a54a615/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  Thu Apr 17 03:26:31 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:26:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Typo warning: JPA Workshop idea
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2A05@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2A05@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2A07@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Quick typing transposed some digits: it should be Sept 30, not Sept. 03

 

________________________________

The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

=====================================

ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government through a
Joint Project Agreement (JPA). The current JPA is schedule to expire
September 03, 2009. The JPA and its renewal process provide what, during
WSIS, became known as "political oversight" over ICANN. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080417/3b64be55/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  Thu Apr 17 03:29:35 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:29:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] Network Neutrality  - A key IG issue ... ?
In-Reply-To: <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <4805CE0B.7060302@jacquelinemorris.com> <4805FFD6.4060207@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2A08@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Now, _that's_ what I mean when I talk about discriminatory conduct based
on vertical integration. So what Carlos talks about here is indeed a net
neutrality issue. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Here in BR the main backbone operators, which are also the providers
of
> broadband to home, monitor/censor/retard packets at will, depending on
> how they affect their interests (as they are conglomerates selling
both
> connectivity and content).
> 
> I cannot watch Joost or any other IPTV service which does not belong
to
> the cable company, for example, in my 8 Mb/s cable modem link (random
> interruptions), cannot run an ftp or mail server, or even a plain Web
> server on my end of the link using standard ports etc -- in summary,
> they arbitrarily decide which packets you can send/receive, and how.
The
> link itself is excellent -- I just downloaded a full Ubuntu CD in less
> than 20 minutes (they seem to like Ubuntu ;)).
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From kettemann at gmx.at  Thu Apr 17 03:37:37 2008
From: kettemann at gmx.at (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:37:37 +0200
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet (especially
In-Reply-To: <45ed74050804161142n4491e689g8403ba6312b3c4d9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <45ed74050804160234x692b5deei4d248038680bd3bb@mail.gmail.com>	 <01c701c89fe6$58c26b10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <45ed74050804161142n4491e689g8403ba6312b3c4d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4806FE41.30306@gmx.at>

Dear Linda, dear friends,

just a quick note on the "rights and duties" discussion from an 
international legal perspective. As I've written together with two 
colleagues in a submission to the 2007 Dialogue Forum on Internet Rights 
(http://forum.dfiritaly2007.gov.it/read.php?1,16), it is somewhat 
problematic to give equal weight to the notions of “rights” and 
“duties”. Attempts to formulate a Universal Declaration on the "Duties 
of Man" have not been successful – and rightly so. While the notion of 
“duties” is used in the American and African regional human rights 
protection systems, it can easily be misunderstood and misused by 
governments to limit human rights. Of course, human rights are not 
absolute. The interdependence of human rights already implies the 
obligation to respect the human rights of others, but any explicit 
reference to “duties” should rather be avoided.

Kind regards

Matthias


linda misek-falkoff schrieb:
> Such a broad smile engendered here.  Yes from this e-desk, very 
> interested. Do a lot with /rights and duties/* formulations, a 
> particular fun thing in law school.  If all that workload was fun.
>  
> Thanks Michael, Parminder, /et al./   Lead the way in the new WG.
>  
> :) LDMF.
>  
> P.S.
>  
> * With particularity here, two very prominent flavors one often 
> encounters: 
>  
> (1) _Rights_ have _Duties_ that come with Rights (same actor);
>  
> (2) Our _Rights_ impose _Duties_ on Others (n-actors)  - (not so 
> comfortable /vice versa/ - Others' Rights impose Duties on Us). !!!


-- 
Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann
Forschungsassistent / Research Assistant

Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale
Beziehungen, Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz /
Institute of International Law and International
Relations, University of Graz

Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria

T +43 316 380 6711 (office)
M +43 676 701 7175 (mobile)
F +43 316 380 9455 (fax)
E matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080417/5aa88bb3/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  Thu Apr 17 08:38:11 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:38:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] A washingtonpost.com article from:
 kboakye1@yahoo.co.uk
In-Reply-To: <3024037.1208408179419.JavaMail.wlogic@webapp3.wpprivate.com>
References: <3024037.1208408179419.JavaMail.wlogic@webapp3.wpprivate.com>
Message-ID: <9119762A-93A1-4AB4-9E68-D8E21A4F7A18@privaterra.info>


For all their words, it seems Comcast only seems interested working  
other other ISPs such as themselves to want to develop a bill of  
rights . As mentioned by Ralf earlier -  has EPIC, Amnesty  
international, the IGF dynamic coalition and/or any other rights  
focused organization at all been contacted - don't think so.. So, just  
empty words..


On the issue of the Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition (DC) - let me  
share will all of you the news that later this morning the Canadian  
Broadcasting Corporation will air a segment on their "Search Engine"  
program on IG, the IGF, and the bill of rights DC

URL - http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/
Program will appear on the site on or after 11:30EDT



regards

Robert



On 17-Apr-08, at 12:56 AM, kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
> This page was sent to you by: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk
> Comcast wants 'bill of rights' for file-sharers and ISPs
> By PETER SVENSSON

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Apr 17 09:35:23 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:35:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <D53B4BB2-78DF-459F-93B5-601133AB0CA3@telus.net>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <D53B4BB2-78DF-459F-93B5-601133AB0CA3@telus.net>
Message-ID: <4807521B.6090902@wzb.eu>



Garth Graham wrote:
> On 15-Apr-08, at 1:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and realize
>> that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
>> to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit more
>> and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.
> 
> If only!  I am willing to pay a lot more for "good service" (which ipso 
> facto includes net neutrality) if it were available to me.  But it's not 
> (and I live in an urban area of 450,000 people).  And, in Canada, with 
> only 4 prime carriers now being de-regulated in favour of "market-based 
> approaches," it isn't going to be.  In the name of "customer service," 
> they are going to throttle bandwidth use to avoid building adequate 
> capacity into the last mile.  As citizens (not customers), it's way past 
> time to "demand" public policy that supports municipal ownership of open 
> networks as a commons-based public utility.

I agree. I am willing to pay but I'd like to know what I get for my 
money. It is about time that ISPs are required to deliver a specified 
minimum bandwidth instead of getting away with vague "up to" 
circumscriptions that leaves customers without any rights.

jeanette

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

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


From rabiabdel at yahoo.fr  Thu Apr 17 09:49:07 2008
From: rabiabdel at yahoo.fr (ABDEL Rabia)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:49:07 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
In-Reply-To: <005a01c8a009$3eb183f0$0b01a8c0@PCbureau>
Message-ID: <210350.52783.qm@web27602.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Salut Jean Louis
   
  C'est Rabia de ENDA TM : nous nous sommes rencontrés qq fois et croisé sur des listes.
  J'ai souri à ta remarque , mais ne pourrions nous pas intervenir un peu plus sur le débat de fond.
  Je vais commencer car il y a trop de banalités entendues sur le "marché".
  Amitiés cordiales
  Rabia

jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> a écrit :
  Dear Avri
I do hope you know a lot more in economics than in italian politics. 
However, Tremonti is well known and not only by insiders. He was the 
"economist" in both the former Berlusconi's gouvenrments, with the 
"succcess" You (should) know.
Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" 
To: "Governance Caucus" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet


> Hi,
>
> not that i want to get n the middle of this 20th century argument, but i 
> read an interesting line in a letter to the Editor of the Financial Times 
> today (oh no, what am i admitting) by Giulio Tremonti (an Italian 
> politician - don't know what his role is thse days) in defense of 
> accusations of protectionism:
>
> "market if possible, state if necessary"
>
> Now i don't now if i agree with much of what he says, as his letter is 
> all i have ever read of his, but this seems to be a reasonable position 
> at first blush.
>
> And in today's world it looks like the market is being effective in some 
> places, but some places need more help then the market is likely to give. 
> And since (fortunately or unfortunately depending on your viewpoint) we 
> have states and collections of states and associations of states ... , 
> they might as well be asked to do something useful for the people.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 16 Apr 2008, at 11:47, Michael Gurstein wrote:
>> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory 
>> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society should 
>> have moved beyond in 1991 1930, if not sooner. But old habits die hard, 
>> which is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy market interventions in the 
>> market in support of public policy goods when beneficial. But let's I'll 
>> give competitive markets and liberal policies their due; they've 
>> produced dramatic expansions in access and will continue to do so if 
>> handled right. Be intelligent about when you need to intervene, and how, 
>> and when you don't. That's all.
>>
>> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do 
>> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>>
>> (well I guess we are closer to consensus than I figured after all ;-)
>>
>> MG
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
>> Sent: April 16, 2008 3:18 AM
>> To: McTim; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
>> Subject: RE: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 2:56 AM, Michael Gurstein >> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The problem Milton (and McTim) is that I don't think anyone
>> believes in
>> > > that kind of incantatory market fundamentalism
>>
>> No, what we're dealing with in your case is a kind of incantatory 
>> anti-market fundamentalism, something that folks in civil society should 
>> have moved beyond in 1991, if not sooner. But old habits die hard, which 
>> is why I make an issue of it on this list.
>>
>> I'm perfectly willing to entertain policy interventions in the market 
>> when beneficial. But let's give competitive markets and liberal policies 
>> their due; they've produced dramatic expansions in access and will 
>> continue to do so if handled right. Be intelligent about when you need 
>> to intervene, and how, and when you don't. That's all.
>>
>> And to anticipate the inevitable incantation that markets don't do 
>> everything or aren't perfect, well, yeah. Who said they were?
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 


-- 
J'utilise la version gratuíte de SPAMfighter pour utilisateurs privés.
Ce programme a supprimé12751 d'e-mails spam à ce jour.
Les utilisateurs qui paient n'ont pas ce message dans leurse-mails.
Obtenez la version gratuite de SPAMfighter ici: http://www.spamfighter.com/lfr



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

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


 __________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
En finir avec le spam? Yahoo! Mail vous offre la meilleure protection possible contre les messages non sollicités 
http://mail.yahoo.fr Yahoo! Mail 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080417/8ab804df/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 nancyp at yorku.ca  Thu Apr 17 12:44:06 2008
From: nancyp at yorku.ca (nancyp at yorku.ca)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:44:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: peering policies
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804162238m7e0258c6l9f68056d6cc10a8a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s8037a80.018@gwia203.syr.edu>  <1208272770.4804c782aa0b2@mymail.yorku.ca>  <f65fb55e0804150941o5fbf5d3r51ac399b805153bd@mail.gmail.com>  <1208283498.4804f16aa7a1c@mymail.yorku.ca>  <f65fb55e0804151152x5de36ae6me3ceea7b3523b617@mail.gmail.com>  <1208292924.4805163c96671@mymail.yorku.ca>  <f65fb55e0804151515x51bbc751t22210222e4d9eb19@mail.gmail.com>  <1208356843.48060feb4ed4b@mymail.yorku.ca>  <f65fb55e0804160827m1984a9chdc8299f95f37ce41@mail.gmail.com>  <1208370366.480644beea990@mymail.yorku.ca> <f65fb55e0804162238m7e0258c6l9f68056d6cc10a8a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1208450646.48077e568132b@mymail.yorku.ca>

M,
OPI (Open Peering Initiative) is in the RIPE region. What abt ARIN?
When you suggested I emailed ARIN, I did. Reply from ARIN below:

Date:   Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:  	hostmaster at arin.net
To:  	nancyp at yorku.ca
Subject:  Re: [ARIN-20080416.1483] ASN request info
Hello,
> May I inquire: is documenting routing policy mandatory* for ARIN-ASN Requests?
> Or is it recommended practice?

We need only enough information to verify the requester has justification
for a globally unique AS number.

AS numbers are commonly assigned based on an intent to multi-home with two
or more upstream providers.  In that scenario, all we need to know about
the routing policy is the upstream ISPs the requester will be peering
with.

If the requester is basing justification on a unique routing policy, we'll
need enough information to verify the AS will have a routing policy that
differs from its border peers.
Regards,
hostmaster at arin.net

Date: 	Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:27:38 +0300
From: 	dogwallah at gmail.com
To: 	nancyp at yorku.ca
Subject: Re: peering policies

Hello,
>> We need only enough information to verify the requester has justification
>> for a globally unique AS number.
>
> The reply seems that in ARIN the routing policies of the networks are not
> mandatory*, public info - is this correct?

Right.

Regards,
hostmaster at arin.net

McTim earlier we discussed:
> >  You describe the AP region documenting routing policy is mandatory* - is >>
this policy for ARIN, LACNIC, RIPE, AFRINIC, etc?
>  First, you need to distinguish btwn "policy" as decided upon by the
>  RIR community and what is mandatory by RIR/IRR procedure (in this
>  case, the specific Db implementation (RPSL).  So no, I don't think
>  it's required by policy by any region (but I could be wrong) but yes,
>  it is mandatory for RIPE, ARIN, MERIT, LACNIC (IIRC)

The examples you email to me are from AP and RIPE but not ARIN. Its North
America I'm looking at.
Further I'm researching private bilateral peering.
This is* difficult (for me) but not IPV6 or black hole physics. I'd appreciate
any help I can get. Thank you McTim and to the list and the very important work
in/on it,
Nancy Paterson
YorkU
Toronto, Canada



========================================
Quoting McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:

> this page may also be useful to you:
>
> http://www.openpeering.nl/publicpeering.shtml
>
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:26 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> > M,
> >
> >  May I ask: abt Bilateral Peering (Tier 1 2 and 3 providers) in the ARIN
> Region?
> >  Do they have mandatory transparent peering policies?
> >  Are these routes public information on the Internet Routing Registry?
> >  thnx
> >
> > NP
> >
> >
> >
> >  Quoting McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> >  > > M,
> >  > >  You describe the AP region and RIPE - that documenting routing policy
> is
> >  > >  mandatory* - is this policy for ARIN?
> >  >
> >  > I don't know, you could ask them, but they do ask for the data when
> >  > you submit a request for an ASN:
> >  >
> >  > http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/asn-request.txt
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >  The problem I identify (I think) is largely a US problem. Outside
> >  > >  of the US most major peering points are open and have well
> established
> >  > >  transparent peering policies.
> >  >
> >  > Where did you get this idea?  Network operator globally do this, it's
> >  > not like there are different Best Common Practices in different parts
> >  > of the world.  Major peering points in the US are open and transparent
> >  > as well.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >  I think the US seems to be the main battleground for carriers
> refusing
> >  > transit
> >  >
> >  > No one really refuses transit, it's turning down business.  Transit is
> >  > what you call a connection to your upstream provider.  One pays for
> >  > transit, it allows you to get packets from the rest of the world.
> >  >
> >  > >  or
> >  > >  peering (witness the current battle between Cogent and Telia).
> >  >
> >  > People peer or don't peer with other networks if it is in their
> >  > interests to do so.  One of the above parties obviously thought it was
> >  > not in their interest to peer with the other and discontinued the
> >  > peering session. This happens frequently.
> >  >
> >  > I don't know
> >  > >  why I surmise this is the case where there such problems in the US
> with
> >  > >  establishing
> >  > >  open peering policies.
> >  >
> >  > I submit that it's not.
> >  >
> >  > Let's look at Cogent for example, they use AS174, and several others,
> >  > but we'll take 174, which can be seen here:
> >  >
> >  >
> >
>
http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=-a+as174&do_search=Search
> >  >
> >  > the -a flag gets data from all mirrored databases, including ARIN and
> RaDB.
> >  >
> >  > See, all the data you need is there, and it's there for an operational
> >  > reason, let's just look at he first few lines:
> >  >
> >  > % Information related to 'AS174'
> >  >
> >  > aut-num:         AS174
> >  > as-name:         COGENT
> >  > descr:           Cogent/PSI
> >  > import:          from AS3 accept ANY
> >  > export:          to AS3 announce ANY
> >  > import:          from AS32 accept ANY
> >  > export:          to AS32 announce ANY
> >  >
> >  > import:          from AS3 accept ANY  /This means cogent peers with
> >  > AS3, they accept ANY routes from 3, which means traffic flows to 3
> >  > from Cogent
> >  >
> >  > export:          to AS3 announce ANY  / This means that Cogent sends
> >  > ANY routes to 3, which means traffic flows to Cogent from 3
> >  >
> >  > I am sorry to shred your theory, but it won't stand up to the data.
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > >
> >  > >  The MERIT RADb: The Routing Assets Database states:
> >  > >  Hundreds of organizations that operate networks—including ISPs,
> >  > universities,
> >  > >  and business enterprises— publicly publish, or register, their
> routing
> >  > policy
> >  > >  and route announcements in the RADb to facilitate the operation of
> the
> >  > >  Internet. Organizations throughout the world use the information in
> the
> >  > RADb to
> >  > >  troubleshoot routing problems, automatically configure backbone
> routers,
> >  > >  generate access lists, and perform network planning.
> >  > >
> >  > >  I'm trying to find out what's missing (hard to describe something's
> that's
> >  > >  missing. Is MERIT the sole US arbiter of this?
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  > What's missing is that what's in the Database(s) is just documentation
> >  > of the routing policies, the actual routing is on the routers.
> >  >
> >  > MERIT is NOT an arbiter of anything. It's just a database that people
> >  > CAN use (along with all the others) to document their routing
> >  > policies.
> >  >
> >  > Who are you reading in your studies?  I suggest that folk like Tom
> >  > Vest and Geoff Huston are the 2 top guys in the field. but really,
> >  > it's impenetrable stuff unless you actually run a network.
> >  >
> >  > --
> >  > Cheers,
> >  >
> >  > McTim
> >  > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
>
>


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

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


From garth.graham at telus.net  Thu Apr 17 14:31:55 2008
From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:31:55 -0700
Subject: [governance] rights based approach to the Internet (especially
In-Reply-To: <4806FE41.30306@gmx.at>
References: <45ed74050804160234x692b5deei4d248038680bd3bb@mail.gmail.com>	 <01c701c89fe6$58c26b10$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <45ed74050804161142n4491e689g8403ba6312b3c4d9@mail.gmail.com> <4806FE41.30306@gmx.at>
Message-ID: <C046A3D4-9EA5-4070-8AD4-C1DAD37AB256@telus.net>

How about "We have a right to good governance but a responsibility to  
say what that is"?

GG

On 17-Apr-08, at 12:37 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann wrote:
> Of course, human rights are not absolute. The interdependence of  
> human rights already implies the obligation to respect the human  
> rights of others, but any explicit reference to “duties” should  
> rather be avoided.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Apr 18 00:24:16 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 18 Apr 2008 04:24:16 -0000
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <4807521B.6090902@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080418042416.7175.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>I agree. I am willing to pay but I'd like to know what I get for my 
>money. It is about time that ISPs are required to deliver a specified 
>minimum bandwidth instead of getting away with vague "up to" 
>circumscriptions that leaves customers without any rights.

I have a connection that is reliably 1.544Mb each way.  It costs me
about $500/mo.  Similar connections at similar prices are widely
available in North America, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find
comparable service (perhaps E1 2Mb rather than T1 1.5Mb) in Europe at
similar high prices.

Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive to provide, and in most cases not
very useful to end users.  When you say you're willing to pay, how
much?  Twice what you pay now?  Ten times?

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Apr 18 02:24:48 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:24:48 +0300
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <D53B4BB2-78DF-459F-93B5-601133AB0CA3@telus.net>
References: <166959.86993.qm@web25513.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	 <A5815BD1-880D-4416-8457-D0ED2CC068E1@privaterra.info>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E28F7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
	 <D53B4BB2-78DF-459F-93B5-601133AB0CA3@telus.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804172324k1b63c9bdw4ba4337deb1c41d8@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham at telus.net> wrote:
> On 15-Apr-08, at 1:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> > The only way out of that dilemma is for customers to wise up and realize
> > that you don't get something for nothing. Customers will need to learn
> > to perceive the difference between a good service that costs a bit more
> > and a shared flat-rate service that keeps them waiting.
> >
>
>  If only!  I am willing to pay a lot more for "good service" (which ipso
> facto includes net neutrality) if it were available to me.  But it's not
> (and I live in an urban area of 450,000 people).  And, in Canada, with only
> 4 prime carriers now being de-regulated in favour of "market-based
> approaches," it isn't going to be.  In the name of "customer service," they
> are going to throttle bandwidth use to avoid building adequate capacity into
> the last mile.  As citizens (not customers), it's way past time to "demand"
> public policy that supports municipal ownership of open networks as a
> commons-based public utility.

Oh yes, let's *demand* that.  I can imagine an open network run by the
kampala city council would give me cheaper bandwidth than I have now
(currently 75 USD per month plus 18% VAT) for
16k CIR burst to 256 (reliably 128kbits/sec down and 96k up).

Of course, it would take years to build (with donor cash) and only
work for a matter of days before the generator ran out of
fuel...permanently, as someone would have stolen the cash needed to
buy more. By the time more fuel was procured, the generator would have
been stolen, but, hey, it could work in an alternative universe.
maybe even yours.  I can see it working in Canada, certainly, but it
would be very very expensive.

Politically it would be very difficult to get done. Can you imagine
the hue and cry about raising local tax rates so that "those darn
college kids can surf for porn"  I can.   Not too mention the
opposition from commercial providers.

-- 
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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Apr 18 03:27:38 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:27:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <20080418042416.7175.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080418042416.7175.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <48084D6A.3090406@wzb.eu>



John Levine wrote:
>> I agree. I am willing to pay but I'd like to know what I get for my 
>> money. It is about time that ISPs are required to deliver a specified 
>> minimum bandwidth instead of getting away with vague "up to" 
>> circumscriptions that leaves customers without any rights.
> 
> I have a connection that is reliably 1.544Mb each way.  It costs me
> about $500/mo.  Similar connections at similar prices are widely
> available in North America, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find
> comparable service (perhaps E1 2Mb rather than T1 1.5Mb) in Europe at
> similar high prices.
> 
> Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive to provide, and in most cases not
> very useful to end users.  When you say you're willing to pay, how
> much?  Twice what you pay now?  Ten times?

Actually my point was that _consumers_ should have a right to know what 
they get for their money. "Up to" is what most providers offer in 
Europe. I wouldn't mind a range of bandwidth but the bottom of it should 
be defined. Business related contracts is an entirely different matter.
jeanette
> 
> 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 18 08:55:03 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:55:03 -0300
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <20080418042416.7175.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <20080418042416.7175.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <48089A27.2050800@rits.org.br>

We are of course talking about final users (consumers, especially home 
consumers) who in general cannot dream of paying $6,000 per year to be 
fully connected at T1 speeds. We are talking about the victims of 
arbitrary measures by operators of ADSL and similar services.

In Brazil we are mobilizing consumers' associations and consumer rights' 
institutes to provide responses to these abuses. Consumer laws in Brazil 
are good, but are worth nothing without mobilization. IDEC 
(http://www.idec.org.br/english.asp), a leading, independent consumer 
rights institute here, for example, is working with Rits and CGI.br (we 
are providing them with technical support) to run independent tests of 
such violations by ADSL providers. Preliminary findings just corroborate 
what I have already said regarding arbitrary tampering with traffic.

Regarding actual speeds, other tests show that in general the link to 
the "tier one" servers (the servers providing content by the ADSL 
operator) are at or very near contract speeds. Content tampering and 
speed limiting is done in the link to the outer tier. Naturally...

frt rgds

--c.a.

John Levine wrote:
>> I agree. I am willing to pay but I'd like to know what I get for my 
>> money. It is about time that ISPs are required to deliver a specified 
>> minimum bandwidth instead of getting away with vague "up to" 
>> circumscriptions that leaves customers without any rights.
> 
> I have a connection that is reliably 1.544Mb each way.  It costs me
> about $500/mo.  Similar connections at similar prices are widely
> available in North America, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find
> comparable service (perhaps E1 2Mb rather than T1 1.5Mb) in Europe at
> similar high prices.
> 
> Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive to provide, and in most cases not
> very useful to end users.  When you say you're willing to pay, how
> much?  Twice what you pay now?  Ten times?
> 
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Apr 18 10:16:57 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 18 Apr 2008 14:16:57 -0000
Subject: [governance] Not Network Neutrality: Bandwidth pricing is the
In-Reply-To: <48084D6A.3090406@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080418141657.23957.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>> Guaranteed bandwidth is expensive to provide, and in most cases not
>> very useful to end users.  When you say you're willing to pay, how
>> much?  Twice what you pay now?  Ten times?

> I wouldn't mind a range of bandwidth but the bottom of it should be
> defined.

I think it is defined, it's basically zero.  You get the maximum
divided by however many people are sharing your connection, which
varies by time of day, network topology in your neighborhood, what's
on TV, whatever.

> Business related contracts is an entirely different matter.

There's no contract for my service, it's a regular item off the
telco's price list.  But since it's two-way with no multiplexing
between me and the router and a relatively uncongested backbone link,
it's not cheap.  For $50/mo I could get cable service from Time Warner
with average typical download speeds much faster than 1.5Mb with lower
worst case.

But this begs the question.  How much more would you pay to know that
your minimum is 100k bits or whatever?  My impression is that most
residential users wouldn't pay extra for guaranteed bandwidth so
there's no incentive to provide it.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Apr 19 02:55:55 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:25:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>

Hi All

 

This is where we stand on our workshop proposals. 

 

1.	Role and mandate of the IGF

 

The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam and
others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF at
the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
make this a regular IGF feature. 

 

Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop proposals
(http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given says;
"Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the mandate
of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this is an
important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year, that
it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops. 

 

2.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues

A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal. 

 

3.	Internationalization  

 

As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
(and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.

 

4.	A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG 

 

Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will soon
be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to join
this WG is welcome. 

 

If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them in
the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need to
be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions. 

 

1.	Name of proposed workshop
2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
workshop.
4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
gender balance.
5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
issues under discussion?
6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
organized in the past.
8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you
submit a workshop report?
9.	9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?

 

The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm . For answering question 9,
please see the list of topics mentioned on this link, though workshops
outside these topics can also be proposed. 

 

 

Thanks. Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/b3154141/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  Sat Apr 19 04:49:12 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:49:12 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240803c42f6145050c@[192.168.1.3]>

Parminder, thanks for this.

The response to the call for workshops hasn't 
been overwhelming, actually very few, so the MAG 
has revised the call and by April 30 just a 
summary proposal will be OK.  I think all 
stakeholders are struggling as we have been 
(actually, caucus probably ahead of many.)

Completed responses where possible, but know this 
is hard so by April 30 a summary is fine. This 
will help everyone better understand what 
interests are this year, perhaps help us put 
people with similar ideas together etc.

The key information needed by April 30 is:

1. Name of proposed workshop

2. Provide a concise description of the proposed 
workshop theme including its importance and 
relevance to the IGF.

4. Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the 
workshop and their affiliation to various 
stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder 
principle, geographical diversity and gender 
balance.

9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
(access, critical Internet resources, diversity, openness, security)

I think we have most of the answers.

Thanks,

Adam


At 1:49 PM +0530 4/19/08, Parminder wrote:
>Hi All
>
>This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>
>
>1.	Role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
>The call is open for volunteers to convene and 
>join this group. As Adam and others said this 
>should be a very useful exercise of evaluating 
>the IGF at the mid-point of its (expectedly, 
>initial) 5 year life. We will need to build on 
>the work that got done for this workshop last 
>year. As you know, we did hold a workshop in the 
>same topic last year and the proposal is that we 
>make this a regular IGF feature.
>
>Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic 
>under which workshop proposals 
>(<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm 
>) may be given says; ³Workshops on other issues 
>relating to Internet governance and the mandate 
>of the IGF are also welcome.² We seem to be 
>already in. I think this is an important impact 
>of IGC¹s first ever workshop on this topic last 
>year, that it is now a part of the official list 
>of themes for workshops.
>
>
>2.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
>
>A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
>
>
>3.	Internationalization  
>
>
>As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be 
>useful to put in the IGP workshop proposal on 
>ŒThe Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?¹ 
>Please see Milton¹s email of the 17th on this. 
>Any IGC member who wishes to work with IGP group 
>to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may 
>write to Milton (and/or me), and can become a 
>part of a WG.
>
>
>4.	A rights based approach to the Internet ­ Implications for IG
>
>
>Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on 
>this, and a proposal will soon be shared for 
>discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who 
>wants to join this WG is welcome.
>
>If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 
>23rd we can discuss them in the IGC till the 
>26th and then put them for a consensus call. 
>These need to be submitted by 30th. We should 
>get as much information in as possible to fill 
>in the workshop application form which lists the 
>following questions.
>
>
>1.	Name of proposed workshop
>2.	Provide a concise description of the 
>proposed workshop theme including its importance 
>and relevance to the IGF.
>3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the 
>panellists you are planning to invite. Describe 
>the main actors in the field and whether you 
>have you approached them about their willingness 
>to participate in proposed workshop.
>4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of 
>the workshop and their affiliation to various 
>stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
>steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder 
>principle, geographical diversity and gender 
>balance.
>5.	Does the proposed workshop provide 
>different perspectives on the issues under 
>discussion?
>6.	Please explain how the workshop will 
>address issues relating to Internet governance 
>and describe how the workshop conforms with the 
>Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the 
>mandate of the IGF.
>7.	List similar events you and/or any other 
>IGF workshops you have organized in the past.
>8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop 
>last year? Which one? Did you submit a workshop 
>report?
>9.	9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>
>
>The workshop proposal request says that at this 
>stage we need to ³at least provide answers to 
>questions # 1,2,4 and 9².See 
><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm 
>. For answering question 9, please see the list 
>of topics mentioned on this link, though 
>workshops outside these topics can also be 
>proposed.
>
>
>Thanks. Parminder
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sat Apr 19 05:00:30 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:00:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <p06240803c42f6145050c@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <C42F814E.11012%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Adam,

On 4/19/08 10:49 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Parminder, thanks for this.
> 
> The response to the call for workshops hasn't
> been overwhelming, actually very few, so the MAG
> has revised the call and by April 30 just a

When will this info be on the website?

> summary proposal will be OK.  I think all

When would the final proposal be due?

> 9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
> (access, critical Internet resources, diversity, openness, security)

This I don't understand.  There has been discussion here and I gather in MAG
of the utility of having some workshops that are designated as thematic and
linked to the main sessions, but that presumably does not mean that all
workshop proposals have to fit under the thematic rubrics.  Moreover, there
has been pretty widespread expression of the view (particularly by us) that
IGF shouldn't continue with main sessions defined around these generic
themes, and indeed the draft program outline agreed at the Feb. MAG meeting
does not.  So why then would would workshop proposers be asked to fit their
events under these labels?  It makes no sense; where would an event of
jurisdiction go, for example?

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Apr 19 05:53:56 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 18:53:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <C42F814E.11012%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C42F814E.11012%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p06240807c42f6decfc63@[192.168.1.3]>

Bill,

>Hi Adam,
>
>On 4/19/08 10:49 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>
>>  Parminder, thanks for this.
>>
>>  The response to the call for workshops hasn't
>>  been overwhelming, actually very few, so the MAG
>>  has revised the call and by April 30 just a
>
>When will this info be on the website?


It's there now <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>

"Stakeholders unable to complete all the information requested in the 
online form by 30 April 2008 are invited to at least provide answers 
to questions # 1,2,4 and 9."

I asked that the announcement be more prominent on the main page. 
It's still hidden away.


>  > summary proposal will be OK.  I think all
>
>When would the final proposal be due?


No decision on that.  Idea is to get information in for the 
consultation, discuss there and in the MAG meeting that follows and 
take things from there.



>  > 9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>>  (access, critical Internet resources, diversity, openness, security)
>
>This I don't understand.  There has been discussion here and I gather in MAG
>of the utility of having some workshops that are designated as thematic and
>linked to the main sessions,


Correct.  I don't understand either.  Think it's a mistake.  In the 
new workshop information 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm> and proposal from the 
last MAG meeting 
<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf> it's clear 
that the old five themes aren't the core for this year.  The new 
workshop information page reflects the MAG meeting report saying:

"Workshops can be proposed on the draft main sessions themes:

     * Universalization of the Internet - How to reach the next 
billion (Expanding the Internet)
     * Low cost sustainable access
     * Multilingualization
     * Implications for development policy
     * Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
     * Critical Internet resources
     * Arrangements for Internet governance
     * Global cooperation for Internet security and stability
     * Taking stock and the way forward
     * Emerging issues

(More information about the proposed themes is available in the 
summary report of the MAG meeting of 27-28 February. 
<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>)

Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the 
mandate of the IGF are also welcome.

The next round of open consultations, 13 May 2008, and MAG meeting on 
14-15 May will discuss the Hyderabad agenda. Information about the 
topics stakeholders think should be addressed in Hyderabad would 
inform discussion in these consultations."

This is what we should be responding to.


>but that presumably does not mean that all
>workshop proposals have to fit under the thematic rubrics.  Moreover, there
>has been pretty widespread expression of the view (particularly by us) that
>IGF shouldn't continue with main sessions defined around these generic
>themes, and indeed the draft program outline agreed at the Feb. MAG meeting
>does not.  So why then would would workshop proposers be asked to fit their
>events under these labels?  It makes no sense; where would an event of
>jurisdiction go, for example?


Suggest if a proposal fits with the five themes, say which.  If it 
fits with any of the themes from the February MAG meeting say so.  If 
it's general, say so.  But I think question 9 as written is perhaps a 
mistake.

I'll ask the secretariat, see if it can be corrected.

Thanks,

Adam


>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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Sat Apr 19 06:06:56 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:06:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
	 <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804190306l36225455p5a04a872be62679b@mail.gmail.com>

I am interested to be in the first workshop proposal: "Role and mandate of
the IGF"

Baudouin

2008/4/19, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
>  Hi All
>
>
>
> This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>
>
>
>    1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
>
> The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam
> and others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF
> at the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
> build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
> did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
> make this a regular IGF feature.
>
>
>
> Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop
> proposals (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given
> says; "Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the
> mandate of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this
> is an important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year,
> that it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops.
>
>
>
>    1. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
>
> A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
>
>
>
>    1. Internationalization
>
>
>
> As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
> workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
> Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
> IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
> (and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.
>
>
>
>    1. A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
>
>
>
> Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will
> soon be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to
> join this WG is welcome.
>
>
>
> If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them
> in the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need
> to be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
> fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions.
>
>
>
>    1. *Name of proposed workshop*
>    2. *Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.*
>    3. *Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
>    have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
>    workshop.*
>    4. *Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
>    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
>    to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
>    gender balance.*
>    5. *Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
>    issues under discussion?*
>    6. *Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
>    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
>    Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.*
>    7. *List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
>    organized in the past.*
>    8. *Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
>    you submit a workshop report?*
>    9. *9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>    under ?*
>
>
>
> The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
> provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See* **
> http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm . F*or answering question 9,*
> *please see the list of topics mentioned on this link, though workshops
> outside these topics can also be proposed.
>
> * *
>
>
>
> Thanks. Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/ab9a167a/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  Sat Apr 19 08:24:48 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:24:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: Rights to Internet/Information (RIT)
In-Reply-To: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
 <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080419122522.667333D66EF@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi parminder and all,

a quick update on where we're at with this proposal..

>A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
>
>Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on 
>this, and a proposal will soon be shared for 
>discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who 
>wants to join this WG is welcome.

Michael and I are working on a first draft - very 
broad brushstroke, taking on board comments in 
the list, and offlist from lisa, konstantin and 
max - and we'll try our best to post this on 
monday - when we'll also post a timeline..

oh, and the accronym - RTI - is care of michael 
gurstein.. we'll be using it as a working title..

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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sat Apr 19 09:23:06 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Arrested - The ability to communicate with the world
Message-ID: <sympa.1208611230.44225.649@lists.cpsr.org>

Held by Egyptian Authorities? Time to 'Tweet'

By Mike Musgrove
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 19, 2008; D01

Art. ref.:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802803.html?hpid=sec-tech

Print:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041802803_pf.html

-

James Karl Buck says he has Twitter to thank for his freedom.

Buck, a journalism grad student, was arrested in Egypt last week, and his only
communication to the outside world was through his cellphone, which he used to
post a message on the micro-blogging site.

"Arrested," he typed into his phone, a message that broadcast via the Web to
his friends in the United States and bloggers in Egypt.

Buck was detained after photographing a labor rally near a textile mill in
Mahalla, a few hours from Cairo, the capital. The grounds for his arrest were
not made clear to him, he said, though the men who detained him said he may
have been inciting a riot.

Twitter, a social-networking site, lets its users constantly update, or
"tweet," their friends, acquaintances and potentially anybody else with a Web
connection, with short, often mundane messages like "heading to the library,"
"feeling sad" or "working late." Entries are limited to 140 characters, so the
typical update is only a sentence or two, like a super-short blog. The free
service launched in July 2006.

After Buck, who was in Egypt for a school research project, sent a tweet that
he had been detained, his friends contacted the U.S. Embassy and his school,
the University of California at Berkeley, which sent a lawyer to get him out of
jail.

A spokeswoman for the State Department said yesterday that the agency helped
secure Buck's release.

Buck's translator, Mohammed Maree, was also detained, the student said. Attiya
A. Shakran, a spokesman for the Egyptian consulate in San Francisco, did not
comment on Buck's arrest other than to say that Maree has been released.

Buck said he used his phone's texting feature rather than make a call because
he figured it would draw less attention.

"I'm not big on 'What's the new techno-gadget of the week?' " he said. In this
case, though, he said he "came to realize how important a tool like Twitter
is."

The ability to communicate with the world via text messages helped assuage
fears he would "fall into a black hole," he said. "Whether it saved my life, or
whether it just kept me sane, I don't know."

Buck hadn't used Twitter for very long before his trip. Ironically, his
research in Egypt focused on bloggers and journalists who use such tools to
keep up with news.

Biz Stone, a co-founder of Twitter, said he and some of the service's early
users knew that it could be useful in emergencies because they used it to stay
in touch after minor earthquakes in the Bay Area.

"Sometimes people take a look at it and aren't sure how it fits into their
life," he said. "This kind of story paints a nice picture of a particular use
case."

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Apr 19 09:48:29 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 06:48:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] Apple Ends Stealth Installs Via Software Update
Message-ID: <sympa.1208612816.44225.118@lists.cpsr.org>

This is an update from Post:
Software Distribution / Turning software updating mechanisms, into a
self-serving 
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2008-03/msg00363.html

also

Related Article of Intrest:
PayPal Plans to Block Safari and Old Browsers
(See link at bottom)
--

Apple Ends Stealth Safari Installs Via Software Update For Windows 

By Paul McDougall 
InformationWeek 
April 18, 2008 04:17 PM 

Art. Ref.:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/browsers/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207400701

Print:
http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=207400701
-

Apple has revised the way it sends software updates to Windows PCs via its
Software Update service in response to charges that it was sneaking its Safari
Web browser onto users' desktops without their permission or knowledge. 
The latest version of the Software Update tool for Windows, version 2.1.0.110,
now clearly lists software that can be downloaded via the service and groups
the updates into those for applications already on the user's computer and
updates for new software. 

The new version of Software Update also gives users the ability to turn off the
service. 

In modifying Software Update, Apple was clearly responding to widespread
criticism that the service downloaded Safari 3.1 onto users' systems
surreptitiously. 

The company included the browser as a stealth update for users of the Microsoft
(NSDQ: MSFT) Windows versions of its iTunes and QuickTime software. Mozilla CEO
John Lilly likened the strategy to tactics used by hackers to insert malicious
code into downloads. 

"Apple has made it incredibly easy -- the default, even -- for users to install
ride along software that they didn't ask for, and maybe didn't want," said
Lilly, in a recent blog post. "This is wrong, and borders on malware
distribution practices." 

Safari competes with Mozilla's Firefox product in the Web browser market. 

Safari 3.1 has been hit with other problems since it launched in March. 

Researchers at software security firm Secunia last month reported finding two
"highly critical" vulnerabilities in the browser. 

In one instance, files with long names downloaded via the browser "can be
exploited to cause memory corruption," according to Secunia. That could result
in the host computer becoming vulnerable to arbitrary code execution -- a
situation where intruders can remotely execute commands on the targeted
machine. 

The other vulnerability lets hackers display their own content in pages loaded
into Safari 3.1 without changing what's displayed in the browser's URL address
bar. 

There's also been reports that Safari 3.1 tends to crash on computers running
Windows XP .

--
Related Article of Intrest:
PayPal Plans to Block Safari and Old Browsers

Art. Ref. :
http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C4006938800025742F0061AAFF.html?ref=technology

Print:
http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_852573C4006938800025742F0061AAFF.html?ref=technology&pagewanted=print
---

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sat Apr 19 10:06:09 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (yehudakatz at mailinator.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 07:06:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] The RBA Road
Message-ID: <sympa.1208613886.44640.903@lists.cpsr.org>

The RBA Road

I found this Journalist-OPINION an intresting real-world paralle to the thread:

"rights based approach to the Internet"

Where today Citizen's of Australia are considering a 'Charter of Rights'

Wishing for a RBA [RIGHTS BASED APPROCH to the Internet]
may have the effeect of transfering an enormous political 
power away from the people to a group of unelected officials.

"pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world"
  Antonin Scalia

--

OPINION

Against an Australian Charter of Rights
By JANET ALBRECHTSEN 
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
April 18, 2008

Art. Ref:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120846108288723747.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Print:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120846108288723747.html
-

SYDNEY

A great danger is headed Australia's way. For years, we've been rebuked by a
vocal group of domestic elites as being rather backward for failing to adopt a
federal bill of rights. The United States, Canada, and Britain all have one, in
one form or another. Even New Zealand has one.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is moving quickly to correct this "problem." This
weekend, the country's highest human rights body, the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission, will make a formal submission to a government summit
calling for a federal charter. Advocates argue that Australia needs one to
protect human rights. Wrong.

 
David Gothard  
Australians don't suffer from a lack of checks and balances. Our Parliament
decides political questions and legislates accordingly. The courts generally
stay out of politics and confine themselves to interpreting the law. When the
High Court has entered the political realm, as in the 1988 landmark case
concerning indigenous native land rights, Mabo v. Queensland, many Australians
balked at the judicial interference. That aside, a fundamental separation of
powers has delivered the checks and balances behind one of the world's oldest
continuous democracies.

Advocates argue a charter is necessary to protect against high-profile
administrative mistakes, such as the wrongful detention of a mentally disturbed
woman, Cornelia Rau, and the detention of Indian-born doctor Mohammed Haneef
last year. Upset, too, by more stringent antiterrorism laws, charter
enthusiasts say Australians' human rights are endangered. Unfortunately,
nothing protects against these kinds of mistakes – and the remedy proposed
would fundamentally alter the nature of Australia's democracy.

Charter enthusiasts want a federal document modelled on those already in
practice in the state of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, where
enshrined rights include the right to freedom of association, movement,
privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief, the right to
liberty and security. It has never been demonstrated that those charters were
necessary, nor that rights in those areas are under threat.

If anything, the movement for an Australian charter of rights smacks of
political, not humanitarian, motivations. Almost every legal body, from the Law
Institute of Australia to the New South Wales Bar Association, now favors a
charter. Little wonder: A charter would stimulate all sorts of lawsuits – and
fees.

The marketing pitch behind the charter movement also raises red flags.
Enthusiasts such as legal academic George Williams, who has been leading the
charter push, and former Labor politician Susan Ryan, point to the detention of
stateless asylum seekers as reason to support a charter. They aim to have
courts effectively sideline areas of government policy they find distasteful.
The logic runs like this: No reasonable person can be against human rights;
human rights are legal matters on which all reasonable people can surely agree.

But this isn't necessarily true. Human rights are not absolute. Even that most
basic right – the right to life – is highly contestable: consider the U.S.
Supreme Court's ruling on abortion in Roe v. Wade, which has divided an entire
generation of Americans. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the
definition of rights and their ambit. When they do so in countries that have a
charter of rights, the judiciary – an unaccountable body – decides the
matter. In countries without a federal charter, like Australia, the people
decide.

Handing political questions to the judiciary does not convert them into legal
questions. Take the example of Britain. There, former Prime Minister Tony Blair
enacted the Human Rights Act to "bring rights home." He realized his blunder
after liberal British Courts used the Act to ignore immigration laws and
welcome radical Muslims into the country. Current Prime Minister Gordon Brown
has recently proposed amending the Human Rights Act to create a new bill of
rights and responsibilities that will detail "not just what people are entitled
to but what they are expected to do in return."

The U.S. experience also shows that vaguely crafted provisions transfer
enormous political power to the courts. In 2002, the Court ruled in Atkins v.
Virginia that the execution of a mentally retarded criminal was "cruel and
unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. Charters also tempt
judges to create rights that haven't been written into the charter or approved
democratically. Relying on a "right to privacy" not explicitly in the
Constitution's text but "read into" the text by earlier judges, the U.S.
Supreme Court, in 2003's Lawrence v. Texas, overturned a Texas law prohibiting
sodomy. Both are issues better decided by the public, not judges.

The Australian charter movement aims to transfer power away from the people to
a group of unelected officials. This logic is often clearly – and publicly
– articulated by our judges; one of the most prominent being Ninian Stephens,
a former High Court judge who once remarked that Australia's "primitive and
handicapped legislature" is "ill-equipped" to decide major social issues.

Confronted by the democratic deficit of a charter of rights, Australians
should, to coin a phrase from U.S. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, pray
for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world. Our system of
responsible parliamentary government and the common law have served Australians
well for more than 200 years. Once it's been released, there is no putting the
political genie back into the judicial bottle.

Ms. Albrechtsen, a lawyer, is a columnist for the Australian

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 19 10:47:17 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:17:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] MAG nomcom
Message-ID: <20080419144733.A35326873F@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Hi All

 

MAG Nomcom asked for more time and we agreed on it. It will work till the
22nd now.

 

Parminder 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/b23d3ae3/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 19 12:11:31 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:41:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net>

> 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

 

IT for Change proposes to develop a workshop proposal on this theme, and, if
agreed, IGC can co-sponsor, and/or its members join in the effort.

 

There is a lot of confusion around enhanced cooperation ( EC), and I think
it is the responsibility of the CS to get a debate going for defining what
is EC, and what is being done about it and what needs to be done, and try to
draw the important actors involved in this process. 

 

There was some discussion under this head on this list a few days back.
Meryem gave her assessment of how things stand. We also decided to write to
the UN Under secretary General to find out about the process (which we will
do presently). There were other contributions. For instance McTim wrote

 

>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 ......".

 

Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at an IGF
workshop.

 

And when you say, in reply to Meryem,

 

> > 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,.

 

I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who are
wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally decided that what
they are doing is EC. You seem to suggest that those who are questioning the
existing (non) process themselves really do not know what EC is or supposed
to be. A thing is defined both by what it is supposed to do, and also how.
Tunis Agenda is very clear on what EC is supposed to do. It does go over
some amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this. The need is
first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to 'develop globally
applicable public policy principles'. Do you have any doubt about it from
the reading of TA. 

 

Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already happening,
moving towards creating such global public policy principles. Is so, can you
please explain how, because I am very interested if it were happening? 

 

On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen, TA found
it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no doubt somewhat
vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete consensus on the exact
process, and the effort for getting this consensus has to  be kept up. So,
TA asks for two set of processes. One to be initiated by the SG which will
try to create a process whereby a method/ way etc for developing these
public policy principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly
another level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work
towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of developing
such principles to develop and take anchor. 

 

Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you
say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that
facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If
you think they are, can you tell me how? 

 

Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute creating
an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC - 'developing globally
applicable public policy principles' and cannot on its own, and to exclusion
of the primary process (in fact, it is often posited in opposition to this
TAs' intended primary process), be called THE EC process. And if someone is
calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.

 

In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough fiction and
confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some facts through an IGF
workshop.

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

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_I

> CC_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

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/da3a2e87/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  Sat Apr 19 12:25:56 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:25:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
 <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080419162641.0C1093D7725@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi parminder


>This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>    * Role and mandate of the IGF
>The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As 
>Adam and others said this should be a very useful exercise of 
>evaluating the IGF at the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 
>year life. We will need to build on the work that got done for this 
>workshop last year. As you know, we did hold a workshop in the same 
>topic last year and the proposal is that we make this a regular IGF feature.
>
>Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop 
>proposals 
>(<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm 
>) may be given says; "Workshops on other issues relating to Internet 
>governance and the mandate of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to 
>be already in. I think this is an important impact of IGC's first 
>ever workshop on this topic last year, that it is now a part of the 
>official list of themes for workshops.

I can't commit to taking a lead on this one, but i hope someone else 
does.. with bill's hard work last year, and all those who supported, 
this ended being a very productive workshop.. and one that was seen 
to be really controversial at the outset.. i hope we can continue 
building on that work

i would be happy to be involved in  WG on this one

karen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/c9419197/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  Sat Apr 19 14:11:18 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:11:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <p06240807c42f6decfc63@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <C4300266.11033%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Adam,

On 4/19/08 11:53 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> It's there now <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>
> 
> "Stakeholders unable to complete all the information requested in the
> online form by 30 April 2008 are invited to at least provide answers
> to questions # 1,2,4 and 9."
> 
> I asked that the announcement be more prominent on the main page.
> It's still hidden away.

I can never find stuff on the IGF site, and have been unable to get a
functioning login, so I can't read the form that's said to be linked from
this page. I gather that it lists the nine questions Parminder emailed out.
BTW there are seven questions on the template
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops08/WorkshopTemplate.v1.doc.  The latter
doesn't include the "which of the five themes" question.

> Suggest if a proposal fits with the five themes, say which.  If it
> fits with any of the themes from the February MAG meeting say so.  If
> it's general, say so.  But I think question 9 as written is perhaps a
> mistake.

Suggest that you simply delete this question, which could cause confusion
among some people, and refer them to
http://intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm where they can find out that
workshops can be proposed on the main themes, or workshops can be proposed
not on the main themes.  Also suggest that you get someone to have a close
look at the nine questions MAG is asking people to address.  Some of them
are not worded well and could cause confusion among non-IGF insiders, e.g.
newbie event organizers.  A spell check would be a nice touch too.

Also, I would like to offer a mild objection to one of the questions.

3.  Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to
invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have you
approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed workshop.

These sorts of loose questions on IGF forms---like the "Relevant
Organizations and ways of communicating with them" one for the workshop
reports---just beg for people to skip them or provide perfunctory responses,
listings, whatever (unless you really would like people to describe ICANN et
al in a few sentences). But more importantly, is the concept here that in
order to propose a workshop, one is compelled to invite the ³main actors in
the field,² or at least to explain why one has not?  Why is that a useful
standard?  If one wants to organize a session on say domain names, is
approaching ICANN mandatory?  It¹s not legitimate to propose an event with
non-main actors that might have something to say?

I just wonder how people who exist outside the IGF bubble read this stuff
and whether they will feel incentivized or the opposite....

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080419/34e50d1e/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  Sat Apr 19 22:47:30 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:47:30 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080415074113.E7527A6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804191947o6a16eeebnc0ddc874140fe637@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Parminder and All,

Best weekend wishes.

Thank you for this post/proposal and the subsequent ones.  I reply to this
one as the stem for further discussing the 'rights based approach.'  I would
like to join this WG and am very interested in terms of *I**CT4all* or other
*equal-participation* tenets.  From diverse but linked perspectives we can
well concern outselves with what a rights-based approach means, but also if
NOT rights based, what other bases of *Inclusion* can (and some can) be
proposed with equal vigor.

As well, when 'push comes to shove' or 'glance comes to embrace,' among us
we might discuss whether  society is ready to really mean ALL even in a
rights-based milieu.

(I am not sure we would want to broach the latter publicly or not ... but
this is just a note on the appealing flavor of the whole subject as focal to
the entire IGF theme.  One suggests).

And with warm regards, extending thanks for the  forum,

:) LDMF.
-
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.



On 4/15/08, Parminder <C> wrote:
>
> 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/20080419/75c1b136/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 nancyp at yorku.ca  Sun Apr 20 13:46:32 2008
From: nancyp at yorku.ca (nancyp at yorku.ca)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:46:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
Message-ID: <1208713592.480b8178134a2@mymail.yorku.ca>

Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?

A York University professor was sitting at his desk at work in March 2008 trying
to reach an internet website located somewhere in Europe. It was important to
his research so when he repeatedly could not reach the site he contacted his IT
department at the University. They were mystified why this would be the case.
The Professor went home after work and found that he could reach the website
from home consistently, for many days and was not ever able to reach the
website from the University campus network.

York’s transit bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering
relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia. Telia was the
bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to
reach. Thus the Professor could not reach the website over the University’s
network. However at home, the Professor purchased bandwidth from Rogers (and
its upstream providers) who did not sever their peering relationship with
Telia. Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and the
loss of connectivity. The University had to open a trouble ‘ticket’ in order to
receive an explanation from Cogent regarding the reason for the failure.

 Is this a net neutrality issue? Definitely. Cogent never informed York
University that it was severing their relationship with a good part of Europe’s
internet by de-peering with Telia. In fact the SLA (Service Level Agreement)
between the University and Cogent is (typically) a very slender document which
defines bandwidth, uptime and price solely. It is usually the case that one
receives more documentation when purchasing a motorhome for example, than when
one purchases large bandwidth.

Cogent is one of the five largest networks in the world in terms of the number
of peers with which it works and more than 95% of Cogent's traffic goes across
private peering connections. The peering dispute between Cogent and Telia left
many networks in the U.S. and Europe unable to connect with one another.
Renesys, which tracks Internet routing, had some additional details on the
impact of the dispute. Renesys said many networks were unable to simply route
around the impasse, perhaps because one party (probably Cogent) had taken steps
to block alternate traffic paths. Their analysis found that 2,383 Telia network
prefixes could not reach Cogent at all, while 1,573 Cogent prefixes were
completely cut off from Telia. The impact was most widely felt in Europe, but
more than 1,900 U.S. network segments were affected as well. What was
surprising was that networks in the US were actually cut off from each another,
given that a largely US provider was de-peering with a largely Swedish one. The
list of impacted networks in North America was long; it included a wide range
of commercial, educational and government clients such as Blue Cross and Blue
Shield of Delaware, Kansas State University and Reuters America. On the Telia
side, the networks included the Swedish Defense Data Agency, the Finnish State
Computer Center, and broadband customers in St. Petersburg. Renesys noted that
Flag and SingTel discontinued peering shortly after the Cogent-Telia peering
was restored in late March, but were allowing customers to find one another via
alternate routes.
 (Miller, R. 2008. Cogent Telia Dispute Widely Felt. IDG TechNetwork, Mar 18,
2008.Retrieved online from:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/Mar/18/cogent-telia_peering_dispute_widely_felt.html)

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr 20 16:13:29 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:13:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <480a19cb.01f6600a.7086.4ebaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <480a19cb.01f6600a.7086.4ebaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804201313h70f67bfaha8459a91bd0a43c1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
<snip>
> do presently). There were other contributions. For instance McTim wrote
>
>
>
> >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 ......".
>
>
>
> Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at an IGF
> workshop.
>

Was this meant to be a Question or a statement? Usually a question
ends with a ?  If it was a question, then I would prefer that folk put
there cards on the table on list first, so that we can see what the
different definitions might be.  Please, I really want to know.

>
>
> And when you say, in reply to Meryem,
>
>
>
> > > 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,.
>
>
>
> I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who are
> wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally decided that what
> they are doing is EC.

Who are these people (besides me)?

I don't see anyone declaring "this or that is EC".  what I do see is
folk cooperating with the spirit of the TA, namely in the examples you
gave up thread (RIPE EC TF, ISOC asking their members in a bottom up
fashion how to respond).


You seem to suggest that those who are questioning the
> existing (non) process themselves really do not know what EC is or supposed
> to be.

What I am suggesting is that we make our views plain on that on list.
I've asked for this repeatedly, and gotten zip.


>A thing is defined both by what it is supposed to do, and also how.

I cannot begin to parse this sentence.

> Tunis Agenda is very clear on what EC is supposed to do.

It is.


 It does go over
> some amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this.

The words "enhanced cooperation appear once in para 69 and 2x in 71.

The need is
> first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to 'develop globally
> applicable public policy principles'. Do you have any doubt about it from
> the reading of TA.
>

Yes, grave doubts, in fact, I am certain that you are incorrect,
according to my reading of para 69:

". We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues."

What this means to me, as a native English speaker (but not as a as
native speaker of diplomatese) is that EC is meant "to enable
governments", not surprising since the UN process that developed the
document was largely inter-governmental.

>
>
> Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already happening,
> moving towards creating such global public policy principles.

Well, the EC efforts I have been describing (and not just recently)
are all being done by communities who, over the last decade (or more)
have developed and used (with great success I may add) globally
applicable policy principles, to wit, those that are inter alia;

Bottom Up
Transparent
Open
Consensus

BTW, since I type these to this list so often, i think it is high time
we had an acronym for these globally applicable policy principles
already in use.  I suggest BUTOC.  Any others??  Has this already been
given an acronym?? Any Internet historians out there? If not, you
heard it here first!!


 Is so, can you
> please explain how, because I am very interested if it were happening?

From what I have seen, the examples I have given (and not just the
recent ones have been about the pre-WSIS Internet coordination groups
trying to share BUTOC with the rest of the world, and trying to
convince them that BUTOC is the way to go.

>
>
>
> On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen, TA found
> it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no doubt somewhat
> vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete consensus on the exact
> process, and the effort for getting this consensus has to  be kept up. So,
> TA asks for two set of processes. One to be initiated by the SG which will
> try to create a process whereby a method/ way etc for developing these
> public policy principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly
> another level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work
> towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of developing
> such principles to develop and take anchor.
>

Well, since the institutions engaged with Internet coordination
already have such a BUTOC to use,I doubt thay are keen to switch to
something less, well BUTOCy.

last half of para 70 says:  "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."

I think (well I know) that the the organizations responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet HAVE been contributing to
the creation of that an environment that facilitates the acceptance of
BUTOC's
AS globally applicable public policy principles.

>
> Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you
> say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that
> facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If
> you think they are, can you tell me how?

I've sent dozens of links on this already, I'm afraid you'll just have
to look them up, as I don't have them handy right now.  One I do have
open now, is this:
http://nro.net/archive/news/continuing-cooperation.html
Which explains the BUTOC driven things I am referring to.

The nro.net  index page now has a section called "Activities in
Internet Governance", much of which seems to be in direct response to
the call for EC.  For example, the first link (NRO at ITU Telecom
World 2006, Hong Kong) in that section leads to a page which says:

"Through the Internet Pavilion, we will work with Telecom World
participants to promote a greater understanding of the existing open
and transparent bottom-up development processes of the Internet
technical community."

>
>
> Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute creating
> an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC – 'developing globally
> applicable public policy principles' and cannot on its own, and to exclusion
> of the primary process (in fact, it is often posited in opposition to this
> TAs' intended primary process),

often posited?? by whom?

The sentence above seems to be missing a verb, but  what you seem to
be saying is that there are supposed to be 2 separate processes, one
started by the SG and one by the "organizations responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet", and these are both
called "Enhanced Cooperation"
and both should be "involving all stakeholders, proceeding as quickly
as possible and responsive to innovation."??

Is that like 2 railroad tracks, both going to the same place, but never meeting?

I find that hard to swallow, which is why I choose to stick with my own BUTOC.

 be called THE EC process. And if someone is
> calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.

is "you know who" something like "He Who Must Not Be Named"?

>
>
>
> In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough fiction and
> confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some facts through an IGF
> workshop.

I doubt we will get many (if any) "facts", since it's all
interpretation at this point.

Can you please tell me what you think EC is, instead of telling me
what you think it's not? Please!


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim


p.s. are you physically incapable of bottom-trimming?
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 20 16:20:59 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 20 Apr 2008 20:20:59 -0000
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <1208713592.480b8178134a2@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <20080420202059.56457.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>York's transit bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering
>relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia. ...

> Is this a net neutrality issue?

Not really, unless the new definition of net neutrality is "anything I
don't like."

Cogent has been providing second-rate Internet service at low cost for
many years.  For customers where cost is more important than absolute
reliability, Cogent is a perfectly reasonable choice.

Peering disputes have been a constant feature of the commercial
Internet since the creation of the CIX in 1991.  As a general rule,
networks of similar size peer with each other without charge, while
smaller networks pay for transit connections to larger ones.  Relative
and absolute network sizes are constantly changing, so there are
adjustments both to the technical connections and the financial
arrangements.  When the financial negotiations break down, one of the
parties will typically turn off the connection, many self-interested
press releases are sent out bewailing the awful consequences of the
other party's refusal to pay the asking price, and after a few hours
or days someone blinks, they make a deal, and the connection is turned
back on.  The recent spat between Cogent and Telia is an utterly
ordinary example of this.  Cogent probably has more peering spats than
other large networks since they're more cost sensitive, but they all
do from time to time.

If York professors' research is so urgent that the inability to reach
part of the net for a little while constitutes a crisis, the
university really should use a higher cost higher quality ISP.  Of
course, someone has to pay for the higher cost, so in fairness if
that's what you want, you should say where the money will come from.

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr 20 18:29:39 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:29:39 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <1208713592.480b8178134a2@mymail.yorku.ca>
References: <1208713592.480b8178134a2@mymail.yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804201529r51ebb044mf73a96f4650e668a@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:46 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
> Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
>
>  A York University professor was sitting at his desk at work in March 2008 trying
>  to reach an internet website located somewhere in Europe. It was important to
>  his research so when he repeatedly could not reach the site he contacted his IT
>  department at the University. They were mystified why this would be the case.
>  The Professor went home after work and found that he could reach the website
>  from home consistently, for many days and was not ever able to reach the
>  website from the University campus network.
>
>  York's transit bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering
>  relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia. Telia was the
>  bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to
>  reach. Thus the Professor could not reach the website over the University's
>  network. However at home, the Professor purchased bandwidth from Rogers (and
>  its upstream providers) who did not sever their peering relationship with
>  Telia. Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and the
>  loss of connectivity. The University had to open a trouble 'ticket' in order to
>  receive an explanation from Cogent regarding the reason for the failure.
>
>   Is this a net neutrality issue? Definitely.

Definitely not.  I agree with Jon, if we start stretching the
definition of NN to be whatever we want it to be, we will never have
NN, as the goalposts will forever move.

This is a business issue between providers and their customers.  If
you can't rely on your upstream, then get a new one (or get a second).
  As you know from our offlist mails, YORK U has AS802 and a /16 of
address space, with these resources, you can multihome easily.  Oh
wait, you ARE multihomed, to AS549 (ONET AS ONet Backbone) and AS174
(Cogent). AS549 is connected to Cogent and to AS26677 (ORION ASN
Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network ORION), which in turn
is connected to AS852 (ASN TELUS Communications Inc), who are
connected to 124 peers, AS1299 (Telia) among them.  Traffic should
have gone to Telia via those links.  From what I can see from route
reflectors, AS549 only sent and received routes from AS802 for about
an hour on 2008-04-08 during the last two months.

Scroll down to the bottom of
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/03/he_said_she_said_cogent_vs_tel.shtml
for an opinion on this.

If peering is a NN issue, then so is the fact that I pay 2x what folk
in the EU pay for only a very small fraction of the bandwidth they
get, or the fact that some folk can get FiOS, while others are "stuck'
with twisted copper pair/wireless/$CONNECTION_TYPE.


Cogent never informed York
>  University that it was severing their relationship with a good part of Europe's
>  internet by de-peering with Telia.

Why would they, really?

The fact is that AS802 gets more European routes from Tiscali (via
Cogent) than from Telia, many more.

In fact the SLA (Service Level Agreement)
>  between the University and Cogent is (typically) a very slender document which
>  defines bandwidth, uptime and price solely.  It is usually the case that one
>  receives more documentation when purchasing a motorhome for example, than when
>  one purchases large bandwidth.

I don't see why this is germaine.

-- 
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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx  Sun Apr 20 20:18:25 2008
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:18:25 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804201529r51ebb044mf73a96f4650e668a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1208713592.480b8178134a2@mymail.yorku.ca>
 <f65fb55e0804201529r51ebb044mf73a96f4650e668a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210013060.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Tim, John,

isn't this the operational stuff that YorkU's tech staff deal with day in 
day out? They sure earn their low salaries many times over and are kept 
awake till 2 AM for it. They sure would want to be able to do better, to 
have a more competitive providers' landscape around, better SLA's on 
offer, and so on, But I doubt that they are starting a demonstration in 
front of the seat of the executive or legislative powers, much less the 
Foreign Office, to ask them for a global edict to aid them.

The lesson I do extract from this exchange is that while tech folks have 
schooled ourselves, some along a lifetime since high school, in history, 
economics, philosophy, political science, public-policy principles and 
applications, international relations, etc., it still remains seen in bad 
taste to ask for the reciprocal. C.P. Snow, where are you in this our 
direst hour?

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 Mon, 21 Apr 2008, McTim wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:29:39 +0300
> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, nancyp at yorku.ca
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
> 
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:46 PM,  <nancyp at yorku.ca> wrote:
>> Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
>>
>>  A York University professor was sitting at his desk at work in March 2008 trying
>>  to reach an internet website located somewhere in Europe. It was important to
>>  his research so when he repeatedly could not reach the site he contacted his IT
>>  department at the University. They were mystified why this would be the case.
>>  The Professor went home after work and found that he could reach the website
>>  from home consistently, for many days and was not ever able to reach the
>>  website from the University campus network.
>>
>>  York's transit bandwidth supplier is Cogent which had severed a peering
>>  relationship with a bandwidth provider in Europe called Telia. Telia was the
>>  bandwidth network provider for the website that the Professor was trying to
>>  reach. Thus the Professor could not reach the website over the University's
>>  network. However at home, the Professor purchased bandwidth from Rogers (and
>>  its upstream providers) who did not sever their peering relationship with
>>  Telia. Cogent did not proactively inform the University of the issue and the
>>  loss of connectivity. The University had to open a trouble 'ticket' in order to
>>  receive an explanation from Cogent regarding the reason for the failure.
>>
>>   Is this a net neutrality issue? Definitely.
>
> Definitely not.  I agree with Jon, if we start stretching the
> definition of NN to be whatever we want it to be, we will never have
> NN, as the goalposts will forever move.
>
> This is a business issue between providers and their customers.  If
> you can't rely on your upstream, then get a new one (or get a second).
>  As you know from our offlist mails, YORK U has AS802 and a /16 of
> address space, with these resources, you can multihome easily.  Oh
> wait, you ARE multihomed, to AS549 (ONET AS ONet Backbone) and AS174
> (Cogent). AS549 is connected to Cogent and to AS26677 (ORION ASN
> Ontario Research and Innovation Optical Network ORION), which in turn
> is connected to AS852 (ASN TELUS Communications Inc), who are
> connected to 124 peers, AS1299 (Telia) among them.  Traffic should
> have gone to Telia via those links.  From what I can see from route
> reflectors, AS549 only sent and received routes from AS802 for about
> an hour on 2008-04-08 during the last two months.
>
> Scroll down to the bottom of
> http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/03/he_said_she_said_cogent_vs_tel.shtml
> for an opinion on this.
>
> If peering is a NN issue, then so is the fact that I pay 2x what folk
> in the EU pay for only a very small fraction of the bandwidth they
> get, or the fact that some folk can get FiOS, while others are "stuck'
> with twisted copper pair/wireless/$CONNECTION_TYPE.
>
>
> Cogent never informed York
>>  University that it was severing their relationship with a good part of Europe's
>>  internet by de-peering with Telia.
>
> Why would they, really?
>
> The fact is that AS802 gets more European routes from Tiscali (via
> Cogent) than from Telia, many more.
>
> In fact the SLA (Service Level Agreement)
>>  between the University and Cogent is (typically) a very slender document which
>>  defines bandwidth, uptime and price solely.  It is usually the case that one
>>  receives more documentation when purchasing a motorhome for example, than when
>>  one purchases large bandwidth.
>
> I don't see why this is germaine.
>
> -- 
> 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 icggov at johnlevine.com  Sun Apr 20 21:02:39 2008
From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine)
Date: 21 Apr 2008 01:02:39 -0000
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210013060.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
Message-ID: <20080421010239.23330.qmail@simone.iecc.com>

>Tim, John,
>
>isn't this the operational stuff that YorkU's tech staff deal with day in 
>day out? They sure earn their low salaries many times over and are kept 
>awake till 2 AM for it. They sure would want to be able to do better, to 
>have a more competitive providers' landscape around, better SLA's on 
>offer, and so on, But I doubt that they are starting a demonstration in 
>front of the seat of the executive or legislative powers, much less the 
>Foreign Office, to ask them for a global edict to aid them.

Quite right.  I agree that the people who keep university networks
going are usually competent and underappreciated.  My point, perhaps
ill-expressed, was that if people in other parts of the university
think that the service level should be better, they really need to say
where they expect the extra money for the improvements to come from.
Every university I know of has fully committed budgets, so more
spending in one area means either raising external money or making
cuts elsewhere.  Maybe both.

>applications, international relations, etc., it still remains seen in bad 
>taste to ask for the reciprocal. C.P. Snow, where are you in this our 
>direst hour?

Yeah.  We've done a really bad job teaching people about the way the
Internet actually works, and people have mental models that are
greatly at variance with actuality.  In this case, there seems to be
confusion about what peering means.

On the other hand, I would hope that people who claim to be interested
in Internet governance would make some effort to educate themselves
about the way the Internet works before flying off the handle.

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 suresh at hserus.net  Sun Apr 20 22:19:49 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:49:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <20080421010239.23330.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210013060.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx> <20080421010239.23330.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
Message-ID: <000401c8a356$2e9dfd40$8bd9f7c0$@net>

John Levine wrote:

> 
> On the other hand, I would hope that people who claim to be interested
> in Internet governance would make some effort to educate themselves
> about the way the Internet works before flying off the handle.
> 

That would be a bit too difficult for them. Far tougher than simply
demanding a stake in governance, without doing anything at all to earn that
stake, or deserve the trust that'd need to be placed in them if they do get
that 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Apr 20 23:58:44 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:58:44 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <000401c8a356$2e9dfd40$8bd9f7c0$@net>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210013060.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>
	 <20080421010239.23330.qmail@simone.iecc.com>
	 <000401c8a356$2e9dfd40$8bd9f7c0$@net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804202058t48fa180ei7a62f4062cc1ec5b@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> John Levine wrote:
>
>  >
>  > On the other hand, I would hope that people who claim to be interested
>  > in Internet governance would make some effort to educate themselves
>  > about the way the Internet works before flying off the handle.
>  >
>
>  That would be a bit too difficult for them. Far tougher than simply
>  demanding a stake in governance, without doing anything at all to earn that
>  stake, or deserve the trust that'd need to be placed in them if they do get
>  that stake.

Testify bruddah!! If they got involved in my BUTOC processes more, I
would think this would lead to greater understanding.  I think there
is a limerick lurking in that thought, but I'll leave it for now.

In any case, this is an "operational matter", and thus excluded from
(at least) the process of EC, if not the IGF as a whole;

69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
issues.

77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations, but
would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be
constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It
would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the
Internet.


-- 
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 apisan at servidor.unam.mx  Mon Apr 21 00:26:49 2008
From: apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Alejandro Pisanty)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 04:26:49 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804202058t48fa180ei7a62f4062cc1ec5b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210013060.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx> 
 <20080421010239.23330.qmail@simone.iecc.com>  <000401c8a356$2e9dfd40$8bd9f7c0$@net>
 <f65fb55e0804202058t48fa180ei7a62f4062cc1ec5b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0804210422360.29752@cuarentena.correo.unam.mx>

Tim,

one thing is for sure: governments in Tunis made well sure that they 
collectively stay away from day-to-day matters of the Internet. These are 
best left to knowledgeable people to operate.

The one government representative present in the PrepComs and writing in 
this list is long-time friend Michael Leibrandt. He may be one of the best 
sources as to what was meant by "a new model of which everyone is afraid 
because it is innovative", in the PrepComs, and "enhanced cooperation", 
meant most acutely as the US working more in consort with the EU and a few 
other governments, by the very late hour in which Ambassador Khan's calls 
for greatness of heart finally had the effect of causing agreement on the 
Tunis text.

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 Mon, 21 Apr 2008, McTim wrote:

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 06:58:44 +0300
> From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF-Is Peering a Net Neutrality Issue?
> 
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
>> John Levine wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On the other hand, I would hope that people who claim to be interested
>> > in Internet governance would make some effort to educate themselves
>> > about the way the Internet works before flying off the handle.
>> >
>>
>>  That would be a bit too difficult for them. Far tougher than simply
>>  demanding a stake in governance, without doing anything at all to earn that
>>  stake, or deserve the trust that'd need to be placed in them if they do get
>>  that stake.
>
> Testify bruddah!! If they got involved in my BUTOC processes more, I
> would think this would lead to greater understanding.  I think there
> is a limerick lurking in that thought, but I'll leave it for now.
>
> In any case, this is an "operational matter", and thus excluded from
> (at least) the process of EC, if not the IGF as a whole;
>
> 69. We further recognize the need for enhanced cooperation in the
> future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their
> roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues
> pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and
> operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy
> issues.
>
> 77. The IGF would have no oversight function and would not replace
> existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or organizations, but
> would involve them and take advantage of their expertise. It would be
> constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process. It
> would have no involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the
> Internet.
>
>
> -- 
> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 21 02:30:37 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:30:37 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <480a19cb.01f6600a.7086.4ebaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
References: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <480a19cb.01f6600a.7086.4ebaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804202330i6f7d36efhc662a8275b1fb76d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you
> say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that
> facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If
> you think they are, can you tell me how?


Here's another link that i ran across this a.m.

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/PDF/monday/Internet_Gov_Amour.pdf

If you like, I can send links every time I run across them (every day)
in hopes of convincing you this is a documentary, not fiction.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Apr 21 05:36:55 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:36:55 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804202330i6f7d36efhc662a8275b1fb76d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080415080053.CC7CBE23FC@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <480a19cb.01f6600a.7086.4ebaSMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com>
	 <f65fb55e0804202330i6f7d36efhc662a8275b1fb76d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804210236v2c83fa5ag585c89fdd20c320d@mail.gmail.com>

and yet another link I have just seen:

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/mem_transcript.html#anchor_5

scroll to last bit at bottom, for EC lovefest between CTU and ARIN:

MS. LEWIS: Bernadette Lewis from the Caribbean Telecommunications
Union. I just wanted to place on record my appreciation for the
process ARIN uses. The transparency, the ability to participate
freely, I think is priceless, and I think it is one of the real pluses
of this organization. And I'd like to say that we are looking forward
from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union to working more closely
with ARIN, to getting involved in the processes, and I think there are
tremendous examples for us to take back and use in the Caribbean. And
I welcome the opportunity to work with the members of the Advisory
Committee and the people who have come forward to make suggestions to
us in terms of policy, getting involved in the policy process. We
really appreciate that, and we look forward to taking a more active
role in the ARIN process. Thank you.

MR. CURRAN: Thank you for your kind words. I can say on behalf of the
Board and the membership, we look forward to working even more closely
with the folks at the CTU. Microphones remain open. Last call.
Microphones are closed. Thank you very much. (Applause)



On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>  >
>  > Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you
>  > say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that
>  > facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If
>  > you think they are, can you tell me how?


-- 
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 KovenRonald at aol.com  Mon Apr 21 08:16:05 2008
From: KovenRonald at aol.com (KovenRonald at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:16:05 EDT
Subject: [governance] Re: enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <d4c.1ac0792f.353ddf85@aol.com>

Dear All --

The speech below by Richard Beaird, the No. 2 of the US Delegation at the 
Prepcoms and both WSIS summits, gives a US vision of the way forward, including 
the USG's understanding of "ehanced cooperation" (centered on cybercrime), 
ICANN's role and that of other international organizations, including ITU, etc. 
While Beaird says he is speaking in a personal capacity, his speech is 
distributed by the US State Department. 

The text shows that much of the speculation on this list may differ from the 
focus of the core players. It suggests, at the very least, that such 
speculation should take into account the policy approaches of such players. Now that 
China has just surpassed the United States as the country with the largest 
community of Internet users, one might also consider more carefully China's 
approach to the future of the Internet, including the Internet Society of China's 
draft "Norm" for Internet as a "harmonious" environment in which allegedly 
negative content is eliminated.

Best regards, 

Rony Koven
World Press Freedom Committee

 
 Speeches: Perspectives on Internet Governance – What Might the Future Hold?
Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:40:47 -0500

 Perspectives on Internet Governance – What Might the Future Hold?
 Richard C. Beaird, Senior Deputy Coordinator for International 
Communications and Information Policy
American Bar Association Business Law Spring Meeting
Hilton Anatole, Dallas, Texas
April 11, 2008
 My remarks today focus on the key international developments that have 
formed the basis for the debate on Internet governance. The presentation will 
necessarily be selective in the examples and themes it discusses. In so doing, I 
understand that my presentation will satisfy some, and others will be 
disappointed that much was left out. Finally, the opinions and themes expressed here are 
my own.
 I would like to order my remarks around three principal benchmarks:
     1.      the original vision and the International Telecommunication 
Union (ITU);
     2.      the World Summit on the Information Society; and
     3.      the emergence of cybersecurity as a policy driver.


 In so doing, I hope to support the central thesis of this presentation: that 
despite considerable economic and technological change, policy debate, and 
different national agendas, existing international organizations and practices 
have adapted to the changing Internet environment, and in so doing, they have 
ultimately supported the resilience of the original U.S. Internet governance 
vision.
 There are presently over 1 billion Internet users. Nothing in history 
matches the expansion of the Internet as a global medium of communications, 
information storing, retrieval and sharing. In the compressed period from 1995 to the 
present, the Internet has become an essential part of our lives. Gathering in 
Geneva, in 2003, Heads of State and Ministers attended the first phase of the 
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). At that Summit, and at its 
subsequent phase in Tunis in 2005, the integral part played in our lives by 
information and communications technology (ICTs) including the Internet was made 
clear in the final agreed upon documents. Heads of State and Ministers agreed 
that their “challenge was to harness the potential of information and 
communication technology” to eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal education, 
promote gender equality, to combat a variety of infectious diseases, ensure 
environmental sustainability, and to promote global peace and prosperity – among 
other stated goals.
 The beginning and the ITU
The story is now legend. Two young government engineers, Bob Kahn and Vint 
Cerf, developed the TCP/IP protocol as a further means to ensure network 
redundancy in support of our national security. Jon Postel, working on the research 
project known as the Terranode Network Technology (TNT) which was part of a 
contract between the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the 
University of Southern California (USC), coordinated the IP numbering system by 
allocating blocks of numerical addresses to regional IP registries. The 
registration and propagation of .com, .org, and .net was performed by Network 
Solutions under a 5 year contract with the National Science Foundation that expired 
September 30, 1998. The “Green” and White” papers were released in 1998. And 
the initial Memorandum of Understanding was signed in November 1998 between 
the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 
Numbering (ICANN).
 From the beginning the U.S. Government was opposed to a “monolithic 
structure for Internet governance.” Instead, the government sought “to create 
mechanisms to solve a few, primarily technical (albeit critical) questions about 
administration of Internet names and numbers.” The government’s goals have also 
remained remarkably constant from the dawn of that policy formulation in the 
late 1990s:
     1.      ensure the stability of the Internet;
     2.      support competition and consumer choice;
     3.      rely on private sector to perform the technical management of 
the Internet; and
     4.      ensure international input in decision making.


 In the early period of Internet governance debate, the International 
Telecommunication Union figured prominently. The Internet Society expressed interest 
in the ITU playing a more operational role once the contract of Network 
Solutions expired in 1998. This idea did not gain full international support. But 
there was an international gathering hosted by the ITU in Geneva in 1997 to 
discuss the transition from Network Solutions to a different arrangement, and a 
Memorandum of Understanding was developed for the ITU to act as a depository for 
the domain name system. A place for the ITU in the Internet field was forever 
set. However, the scope of ITU’s involvement remains an ongoing issue. In the 
ITU’s evolving role with respect to the Internet, it should be underscored 
that the ITU’s role remains anchored in the membership of the ITU, with full 
recognition of the essential place of the private sector.
 By looking at the resolutions adopted in 1998 at the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary, at the Marrakech Plenipotentiary in 2002, and those adopted at the most 
recent Plenipotentiary in 2006 in Antalya Turkey, the evolution of the ITU in 
the Internet space is revealed.
 Resolution 101 of Minneapolis concerns “Internet Protocol (IP)-based 
networks,” and resolution 102 deals with “Management of Internet domain names and 
addresses.” The two resolutions set a vision for the role of the ITU: resolution 
101 considers that the Internet is an important engine for global growth and 
that it is replacing existing services and introducing new ones and “voice 
over Internet is being developed rapidly.” The resolution calls for a 
clarification of the role of the ITU in the Internet space and resolves that the ITU 
should collaborate with other international organizations on matters “related to 
IP-based networks.” Resolution 102, “Management of Internet domain names and 
addresses,” considers that the “methods of allocation of Internet domain names 
and addresses should not privilege any country or region of the world to the 
detriment of others.” It also considers that “the management of the Internet 
is a subject of valid international interest and must flow from full 
international cooperation.” The resolution calls upon the Secretary-General of the ITU “
to take an active part in the international discussions and initiatives on 
the management of Internet domain names and addresses,” with particular 
attention to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
 By 2006, and as a result of the Antalya Plenipotentiary, the subjects 
covered by the same numbered resolutions have expanded. The resolutions now consider 
the vital role that the Internet plays in broad social terms. All three 
sectors of the ITU, namely Development, Standardization, and Radio are to be 
involved in matters related to the Internet. This broad perspective is captured by 
the title of new resolution 102: no longer is the resolution only about the “
management of Internet domain names and addresses,” but it is about “ITU’s role 
with regard to international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet 
and the management of Internet resources, including domain names and addresses.
” New technologies and applications are to be considered, including Next 
Generation Networks, IPv6, ENUM and Internationalized Domain Names. Finally, the 
current versions of the Internet-related resolutions give full acknowledgement 
to the World Summit, its results, and its implementation.
 The World Summit on the Information Society
As many of you may know, the World Summit on the Information Society was held 
in two phases, Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005). In 2001, the ITU Council (the 
46 country governing board of the ITU) issued a decision to endorse the 
holding of a World Summit on the Information Society at the highest possible level 
in two phases, which was further endorsed by UN General Assembly in Resolution 
56/183, adopted on 31 January 2002. The Summit, in the words of this 
resolution, was “to be convened under the patronage of the Secretary-General of the 
United Nations, with the International Telecommunication Union taking the lead 
role in its preparation.”
 From the many negotiations – often intense, always complicated, and 
sometimes confusing – involved in the WSIS, I wish to focus on two results of the 
World Summit:
     •      the clarification of the U.S. position regarding Internet 
governance through the Four Principles of June, 2005 and the so-called “WSIS 
compromise”; and
     •      emergence of a future global agenda contained in the follow-up 
and implementation of the results of the WSIS.


 In Geneva in 2003, the Summit asked “the Secretary-General of the United 
Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance.” This working group 
issued its report in June 2005. It defined Internet governance as follows:

 Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the 
private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared 
principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the 
evolution and use of the Internet.

 The Tunis phase of the World Summit adopted this definition as a working 
definition, leaving open the practical possibility that the definition may evolve 
in the face of technological and other changes. Further, the working group 
identified a number of issues “of highest priority, including related issues and 
problems.” First among these issues was the administration of the root zone 
files, a system which the working group characterized as being under “the 
unilateral control by the United States Government.” This issue became the focus of 
considerable debate within the WSIS context. There were contributions on this 
subject from the EU, Russia, the Arab Group, Japan, and Iran, among others, 
to the preparatory committee sessions leading to the Tunis Summit in December 
2005.
 The United States issued its Four Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name 
and Addressing Systems on June 30, 2005. These Four Principles are the 
Administration’s fundamental position with respect to Internet governance. The Four 
Principles were the basis of U.S. positions during the Tunis phase of the WSIS 
negotiations, and in many bilateral discussions during the summer of 2005. In 
summary the Four Principles are:
     •      The United States government intends to preserve the security and 
stability of the Internet’s domain name and addressing system (DNS).
     •      Government’s have legitimate interest in the management of their 
country code and top level domains (ccTLD).
     •      ICANN is the appropriate technical manager of the Internet DNS.
     •      Dialogue related to Internet governance should continue in 
relevant multiple fora.


 The last principle set the stage for the ultimate compromise coming during 
the Tunis phase of the World Summit. This compromise had two parts.
 First, WSIS delegations agreed to “invite the UN Secretary-General to 
convene a new forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue.” This new forum was 
called the Internet Governance Forum. The purpose of the Forum is “to discuss 
public policy issues related to key elements of Internet Governance”. The Forum 
would have no “oversight function” and it would be “constituted as a neutral, 
non-duplicative and non-binding process.” In addition, it would have no 
involvement in day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.”
 Second, WSIS delegations agreed that there is a “need for enhanced 
cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out 
their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues 
pertaining to the Internet.” Further, WSIS participants agreed that “relevant 
organizations should commence a process as quickly as possible and responsive to 
innovation.”
 These two elements of the Tunis compromise, we believe, are fully consistent 
with the Four Principles. Indeed, the U.S. delegation was instrumental in the 
final stages of the negotiations in forging this compromise. What was not 
part of the compromise was the creation of a “new cooperation model” as the EU 
would have preferred. And, as a result, no remit or mandates of existing 
international organizations were changed as a result of the agreement on “enhanced 
cooperation.” Rather, the United States sees existing international 
organizations as the basis for “enhanced cooperation.”
 In this last regard, the WSIS did lay out an ambitious program of 11 action 
lines as follow-up to the conclusions reached during the two phases of the 
WSIS process. The ITU has been given the role of coordinator/facilitator with 
respect to two action lines: information and communication infrastructure and 
building confidence and security in the use of ICTs. The remaining action lines 
assigned to other organizations include such areas as access to information and 
knowledge, capacity building, ICT applications, and international regional 
cooperation.
 The Emergence of Cyber-security as a policy driver
We are all aware of statistics that try to capture the scope of cybercrime. 
It has been stated that in 2007, computer hackers tried to install 500,000 
unique viruses and other malware. This number, it is said, will likely double in 
2008. Further, the average large U.S business was attacked 150,000 times in 
2007. Regardless of the specific statistics that are used, it is clear that 
cybercriminals grow increasingly sophisticated each year, and cause serious threats 
to governments and businesses alike. There are efforts throughout the 
government to deal with these new economic and infrastructure threats.
 The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society (WSIS December 2005) 
acknowledged the need “to build confidence and security in the use of ICTs by 
strengthening the trust framework.” Participants at this phase of the World Summit 
affirmed “the necessity to further promote, develop and implement in cooperation 
with all stakeholders a global culture of cybersecurity.” It was mentioned 
earlier that the ITU was given the facilitator role with respect to WSIS action 
line on building confidence and security in the use of ICTs. In 2007, the 
Secretary-General of the ITU launched the Global Cybersecurity Agenda. In so doing, 
he stated that “cybersecurity and cyberpeace are the most critical concerns of 
our information age.” He went on to say that “making a simple transaction on 
the Internet using a credit card can be fraught with danger. Imagine the 
difficulties this could pose in an increasingly networked world of e-commerce and 
e-government.”
 The Secretary-General formed a High Level Experts Group to develop advice on 
what the ITU can do with respect to cybersecurity. The report of this group 
will be forwarded by the Secretary-General to the ITU’s Council (the 46 country 
governing board of the ITU between Plenipotentiaries) on the occasion of its 
meeting this November. The Council will then decide on a course ahead for the 
ITU. But whatever advice comes from the experts group will be given against a 
background of policy and technical work already being done at the ITU, whether 
in the Standardization or Development sectors of the Union.
 There is considerable global cooperation underway on cybersecurity: I 
mentioned the ITU but there is also work being done in such organizations as the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization (NATO), the Council of Europe, the Asia Pacific Economic Forum 
(APEC), and within this hemisphere at the Organization of American States 
(OAS). The work underway at various universities and informal networks of 
cooperation bring together governments and a variety of stakeholders.
 Cybersecurity is one of the principal policy drivers in the Internet space 
moving the international community toward “enhanced cooperation.” Certainly, 
views on the best approach to cybersecurity are not without differences among 
key international players. The United States has ratified the Council of Europe’
s Convention on Cybercrime. We believe that this convention offers the best 
legal framework for the international community. We certainly work actively 
with many bilateral partners to assist in the development of their own national 
legal infrastructure to combat cybercrime. We believe that through these means –
 bilateral legal assistance and training and through the Council of Europe’s 
Convention there is no need for the creation of another international 
instrument for this purpose. This position has been made known at the ITU and 
elsewhere.
 We have also made clear that we believe the ITU should continue its work in 
the area of cybersecurity. However, the ITU mandate does not extend to 
cybercrime. Each international organization should continue its “enhanced cooperation”
 work and initiatives within its existing remit and mandate. Other key 
international players wish to broaden the mandate and scope of work of the ITU to 
include cybercrime and much else in the area of “information security.” 
Presently, we are debating these points within many working groups of the ITU, and 
the scope and mandate of the ITU will certainly be a major issue at the ITU’s 
Plenipotentiary in 2010.
 Conclusion
We all know that the Internet is based on a distributed design and 
decentralized control. New applications are always emerging – many call this creating 
value or innovation at the edges. We return to the working definition of 
Internet governance offered by the World Summit. It speaks of “shared principles, 
norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution 
and use of the Internet.” It also speaks of multiple stakeholders: “
Governments, the private sector and civil society.” Note that nothing in the 
definition limits our understanding of Internet governance to a single structure – 
Internet governance is clearly much broader than ICANN.
 International attention, debate, and dialogue on matters related to the 
Internet cross many organizations and regions. This fertile global dialogue has 
and will occasionally lead to negotiations and binding agreements. But to date 
the original intent of the Internet governance vision of the United States in 
1997, and as elaborated in the Four Principles in 2005 have remained viable 
and, to an extraordinary degree, accepted by the international community. At the 
core of the U.S. Internet vision is stability, competition, multi-stakeholder 
and international dialogue. It has been the case from the beginning, when the 
Department of Commerce requested comments on the registration and 
administration of Internet domain names in July 1997, to the signing of the Joint Project 
Agreement with ICANN in September 2006, to the recently concluded mid-term 
review of that Agreement.
 Two distinguished members of your Bar, Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, have 
stated that like all previous forms of technological development and forms of 
technology-based communications, the Internet has not displaced “the central role 
of territorial government in human governance.” But whereas Goldsmith and Wu 
principally address the role of government coercion in Internet matters, I 
choose to emphasize a different face of governance. It is the potential to address 
human needs, at an unprecedented level, that lies before us as a consequence 
of the emerging Internet-based Information Society. I have noted that this is 
the conclusion of those who participated in the World Summit. At the end of the 
day, the WSIS was, to a remarkable degree, affirming of human freedom and 
potential – resting on the evolution of the Internet and ICTs, and positively 
supported by governments. In Tunis, Heads of State and Ministers, for the first 
time at a global summit, recognized “that freedom of expression and the free 
flow of information, ideas, and knowledge, are essential for the Information 
Society and beneficial to development” (Tunis Commitment paragraph 4). Perhaps 
this connection between the original U.S. vision of Internet governance and the 
affirming values of the World Summit, accounts for the resilience of the 
original U.S. Internet governance vision. At the very least, we can say that all 
future agendas regarding the Internet will be judged by these values.
 Thank you.

Released on April 18, 2008


This service is provided to you at no charge by the U.S. Department of State.
 GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of U.S. Department of State · 2210 C 
Street NW · Washington DC 20520 · 1-800-439-1420




**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car 
listings at AOL Autos.
      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080421/0c561b2d/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 msapiro at starpower.net  Mon Apr 21 08:32:00 2008
From: msapiro at starpower.net (Miriam Sapiro)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 8:32:00 -0400
Subject: [governance] Hi
Message-ID: <6p7f15$gtfqve@smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net>

on the road but a quick and heart felt HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Miriam Sapiro
President
Summit Strategies International
O: (202) 362-1909
M: (202) 431-0635


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 21 10:57:16 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:27:16 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080419065607.78620A6C1A@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080421145724.A741D68755@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Update on workshop proposals for IGF.

 

1. Role and mandate of the IGF

 

Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill and
Vittorio from the last year's group (Karen has said no to convening, and I
do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours, will
one of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the last
year's group will be good. 

 

2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction

 

The WG is working

 

3. 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'

 

IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if
anyone from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions. 

 

4. Rights based approach the Internet - Implications for IG

 

A draft is being developed. 

 

As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground to
propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th - 29th. 

 

Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these proposals,
it will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and the
appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right away.

 

Thanks

 

Parminder  

 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] IGC workshops

 

Hi All

 

This is where we stand on our workshop proposals. 

 

1.	Role and mandate of the IGF

 

The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam and
others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF at
the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
make this a regular IGF feature. 

 

Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop proposals
(http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given says;
"Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the mandate
of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this is an
important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year, that
it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops. 

 

2.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues

A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal. 

 

3.	Internationalization  

 

As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
(and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.

 

4.	A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG 

 

Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will soon
be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to join
this WG is welcome. 

 

If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them in
the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need to
be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions. 

 

1.	Name of proposed workshop
2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
workshop.
4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
gender balance.
5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
issues under discussion?
6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
organized in the past.
8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you
submit a workshop report?
9.	9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?

 

The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm . For answering question 9,
please see the list of topics mentioned on this link, though workshops
outside these topics can also be proposed. 

 

 

Thanks. Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080421/b3a8b9d4/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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Mon Apr 21 12:46:03 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:46:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: enhanced cooperation
Message-ID: <s80c8c99.095@gwia203.syr.edu>

Hi,

Following up on McTim's email, the CTU's Sec Gen Bernadette Lewis and
staff as well as ARIN have participated past few years in Caribbean
Internet Governance Forums in association also with the pre-existing
Caribbean Internet Forum, which does seem to have made a qualitative
change in how the various organizations at state, regional, and
international level interact.   Both bring government officials,
regulators, ISPs & telcos, academics, civil society activists and last
couple years also ICANN folks together. Seems to be having an impact
that I would agree qualifies at regional level as enhanced cooperation,
producing output for example also then endorsed also at
inter-ministerial regional level, developing a regional Internet
governance framework based on principles of openness etc.  

Last year the CIF was institutionalized as a Jamaican non-profit, of
which I'm pleased to be a member, in my SU/IGP capacity.  CIF VI in
Trinidad, in November, all welcome I'm sure!  Prof. Kim Mallalieu of UWI
is the lead organizer. Ok, that's the infomercial.
Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> dogwallah at gmail.com 04/21/08 5:36 AM >>>
and yet another link I have just seen:

http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/ARIN_XXI/mem_transcript.html#anchor_5

scroll to last bit at bottom, for EC lovefest between CTU and ARIN:

MS. LEWIS: Bernadette Lewis from the Caribbean Telecommunications
Union. I just wanted to place on record my appreciation for the
process ARIN uses. The transparency, the ability to participate
freely, I think is priceless, and I think it is one of the real pluses
of this organization. And I'd like to say that we are looking forward
from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union to working more closely
with ARIN, to getting involved in the processes, and I think there are
tremendous examples for us to take back and use in the Caribbean. And
I welcome the opportunity to work with the members of the Advisory
Committee and the people who have come forward to make suggestions to
us in terms of policy, getting involved in the policy process. We
really appreciate that, and we look forward to taking a more active
role in the ARIN process. Thank you.

MR. CURRAN: Thank you for your kind words. I can say on behalf of the
Board and the membership, we look forward to working even more closely
with the folks at the CTU. Microphones remain open. Last call.
Microphones are closed. Thank you very much. (Applause)



On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 9:30 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:
>  >
>  > Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the
institutions you
>  > say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an
environment that
>  > facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70,
TA). If
>  > you think they are, can you tell me how?


-- 
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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Mon Apr 21 16:17:40 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:17:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080421145724.A741D68755@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <C432C304.110C4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder,

On the role and mandate workshop:  Having done it last year, I don¹t think
it¹s right for me to do it again, and anyway I¹m in the jurisdiction group.
My suggestion would be that we get new blood involved, people who¹ve been
active in the caucus, have thought a lot about this, but can broker between
different tendencies etc.   Some obvious convener candidates like Willie,
Lee, others, come to mind if they¹d be interested...

It may be that part of what¹s holding people back is the prospect of a
complicated and time consuming process, but in reality, this really
shouldn¹t be too hard.  It¹s not necessary to renegotiate the ws description
from scratch and totally rethink the co-sponsors and speakers in the next
nine days.  Last year¹s event went well and everyone seemed to come away
fairly happy (including some parties that fretted about it in advance), so
we seemingly established a certain level of trust and understanding that the
event is useful and won¹t blow up the joint.  I assume the MAG would expect
to see a proposal for a v.2 from us (or more to the point, would be rather
surprised not to), and that we shouldn¹t have to re-convince them too
elaborately as long as we cross the T¹s and dot the I¹s in terms of being MS
with diverse views etc.  So why not resubmit largely the same text and reach
out to the more or less the same kinds of co-sponsors and non-CS speakers we
had last year (ICC/Ayesha, ISOC/Bill, developing country/India, developed
country/EC, etc), come up with three new IGC speakers with varying shades of
positions, submit whatever we have by April 30, and then add later as
needed.  

BTW, for reference, the report on last year¹s version of the ws is now at
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30.

Best,

Bill


On 4/21/08 4:57 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
>  
> 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>  
> Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
> Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
> convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill and
> Vittorio from the last year¹s group (Karen has said no to convening, and I do
> not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours, will one
> of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the last year¹s
> group will be good.
>  
> 2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction
>  
> The WG is working
>  
> 3. ŒThe Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?¹
>  
> IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if anyone
> from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions.
>  
> 4. Rights based approach the Internet ­ Implications for IG
>  
> A draft is being developed.
>  
> As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
> proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground to
> propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th ­ 29th.
>  
> Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these proposals, it
> will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and the
> appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right away.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Parminder  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC workshops
>  
> Hi All
>  
> This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>  
> 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>  
> The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam and
> others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF at the
> mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to build on
> the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we did hold a
> workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we make this a
> regular IGF feature.
>  
> Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop proposals
> (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given says; ³Workshops
> on other issues relating to Internet governance and the mandate of the IGF are
> also welcome.² We seem to be already in. I think this is an important impact
> of IGC¹s first ever workshop on this topic last year, that it is now a part of
> the official list of themes for workshops.
>  
> 1. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
> A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
>  
> 1. Internationalization
>  
> As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP workshop
> proposal on ŒThe Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?¹ Please see Milton¹s
> email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with IGP group to
> develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton (and/or me), and
> can become a part of a WG.
>  
> 1. A rights based approach to the Internet ­ Implications for IG
>  
> Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will soon
> be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to join
> this WG is welcome.
>  
> If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them in
> the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need to be
> submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to fill in
> the workshop application form which lists the following questions.
>  
> 1. Name of proposed workshop
> 2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme including its
> importance and relevance to the IGF.
> 3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning to
> invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have you
> approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed workshop.
> 4. Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their affiliation
> to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps to adhere to
> the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and gender balance.
> 5. Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the issues
> under discussion?
> 6. Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to Internet
> governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis Agenda in
> terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
> 7. List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have organized
> in the past. 
> 8. Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you submit
> a workshop report?
> 9. 9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>  
> The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to ³at least
> provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9².See
> http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>  . For answering question 9,
> please see the list of topics mentioned on this link, though workshops outside
> these topics can also be proposed.
>  
>  
> Thanks. Parminder
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080421/049d91a9/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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 21 19:46:14 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:46:14 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080421145724.A741D68755@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080421145724.A741D68755@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <1A9767A0-5CBA-4175-AEFD-7DB9FE460F92@Malcolm.id.au>

On 21/04/2008, at 10:57 PM, Parminder wrote:
> Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
>
> 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
> Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen  
> and Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone  
> ready to convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We  
> have Bill and Vittorio from the last year’s group (Karen has said no  
> to convening, and I do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene  
> in the next 24 hours, will one of you please take up the task? In  
> any case participation from the last year’s group will be good.

I am also provisionally interested in participating but I'm not sure  
who my employer will be when the IGF arrives and so I can't be sure I  
will be able to make it.  In that light I had better not be involved  
in convening it, so I hope that someone else will.

-- 
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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 22 04:58:56 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:58:56 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Does somebody know what happened with the letter from UN Under Secretary general Zhka to ISOC about enhanced cooperation? Did ICANN, ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, IETF, NRO, ICC or the IGC similar letters? Is there any feed back? 
 
Does somebody know what the result is from ITUs questionnaire with regard to resolution 102? Is there a report back to the Council? 
 
Is there a programme committee for the ITU World Telecommmunication Forum (schedule for end of March 2009 in Geneva) and if yes, do they have enhanced cooperation on the agenda? 
 
Will it be discussed (and if yes by whom) in the forthoming OECD Ministerial meeting in June in Seul? 
 
Will the UNCSTD have report for this years session? It became part of its mandate after last years resolution. 
 
If nobody knows anything, the IGC could step in and encourages one of its members to produce an overview in cooperation with GIGANET for the Hyderabad meeting. We can use the May consultation just to ask three or four basic questions to all the organisaitons, participating in the Geneva meeting. It would be good to have such an overview and to present it in Hyderabad. 
 
Any comments? 
 
Wolfgang
 

 
________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Sa 19.04.2008 18:11
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
Betreff: [governance] enhanced cooperation



> 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

 

IT for Change proposes to develop a workshop proposal on this theme, and, if agreed, IGC can co-sponsor, and/or its members join in the effort.

 

There is a lot of confusion around enhanced cooperation ( EC), and I think it is the responsibility of the CS to get a debate going for defining what is EC, and what is being done about it and what needs to be done, and try to draw the important actors involved in this process. 

 

There was some discussion under this head on this list a few days back. Meryem gave her assessment of how things stand. We also decided to write to the UN Under secretary General to find out about the process (which we will do presently). There were other contributions. For instance McTim wrote

 

>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 ......".

 

Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at an IGF workshop.

 

And when you say, in reply to Meryem,

 

> > 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,.

 

I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who are wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally decided that what they are doing is EC. You seem to suggest that those who are questioning the existing (non) process themselves really do not know what EC is or supposed to be. A thing is defined both by what it is supposed to do, and also how. Tunis Agenda is very clear on what EC is supposed to do. It does go over some amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this. The need is first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to 'develop globally applicable public policy principles'. Do you have any doubt about it from the reading of TA. 

 

Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already happening, moving towards creating such global public policy principles. Is so, can you please explain how, because I am very interested if it were happening? 

 

On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen, TA found it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no doubt somewhat vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete consensus on the exact process, and the effort for getting this consensus has to  be kept up. So, TA asks for two set of processes. One to be initiated by the SG which will try to create a process whereby a method/ way etc for developing these public policy principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly another level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of developing such principles to develop and take anchor. 

 

Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the institutions you say are already doing EC as contributing " to creating an environment that facilitates this development of public policy principles" (para 70, TA). If you think they are, can you tell me how? 

 

Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute creating an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC - 'developing globally applicable public policy principles' and cannot on its own, and to exclusion of the primary process (in fact, it is often posited in opposition to this TAs' intended primary process), be called THE EC process. And if someone is calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.

 

In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough fiction and confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some facts through an IGF workshop.

 

Parminder 

 

________________________________

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_I

> CC_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

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 22 05:23:40 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (lists at privaterra.info)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
Message-ID: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>

As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.

A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
for the candidates.

The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
included in the final report.

I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.

We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...


regards

Robert Guerra
2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.


-----


# of nominations submitted: 33

Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15

Statistics:
- Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
North America (3)
- Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)

Africa

Natasha Primo
Dawit Bekele
Ken Lohento

Asia

Adam Peake
Izumi Aizu
Y. J. Park
Iffat Rose Gill

Europe

William Drake
Vittorio Bertola
Jeanette Hofmann


LAC

Valeria Betancourt
Graciela Selaimen


North America

Robin Gross
Milton Mueller
Michael Gurstein


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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Tue Apr 22 06:38:52 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:38:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <480DC03C.4040301@wzb.eu>

dear nomcom,

thank you for nominating me again.
jeanette

lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> 
> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
> for the candidates.
> 
> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
> included in the final report.
> 
> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> 
> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert Guerra
> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> # of nominations submitted: 33
> 
> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> 
> Statistics:
> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
> North America (3)
> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> 
> Africa
> 
> Natasha Primo
> Dawit Bekele
> Ken Lohento
> 
> Asia
> 
> Adam Peake
> Izumi Aizu
> Y. J. Park
> Iffat Rose Gill
> 
> Europe
> 
> William Drake
> Vittorio Bertola
> Jeanette Hofmann
> 
> 
> LAC
> 
> Valeria Betancourt
> Graciela Selaimen
> 
> 
> North America
> 
> Robin Gross
> Milton Mueller
> Michael Gurstein
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 22 06:48:47 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:48:47 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C83@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Congratulations to all who has been choosen by the NomCom. Good work, balanced selection. Looks like a strong team. Does anybody have an idea, how many will finally make its way into the MAG? I am afraid the CS will have less than 15 seats in the new MAG. Next time we should have also some more new faces. We need more dynamic youngsters. 
 
Best reagrds
 
wolfgang 

________________________________

Von: lists at privaterra.info [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
Gesendet: Di 22.04.2008 11:23
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates



As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.

A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
for the candidates.

The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
included in the final report.

I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.

We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...


regards

Robert Guerra
2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.


-----


# of nominations submitted: 33

Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15

Statistics:
- Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
North America (3)
- Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)

Africa

Natasha Primo
Dawit Bekele
Ken Lohento

Asia

Adam Peake
Izumi Aizu
Y. J. Park
Iffat Rose Gill

Europe

William Drake
Vittorio Bertola
Jeanette Hofmann


LAC

Valeria Betancourt
Graciela Selaimen


North America

Robin Gross
Milton Mueller
Michael Gurstein


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

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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 22 06:58:25 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:58:25 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <480DC03C.4040301@wzb.eu>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
 <480DC03C.4040301@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20080422105854.28F7C3EA500@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi everyone

yes - congrats to all of the nominees and the nomcom for a job well 
done.. it's a strong slate

a few anomalies in terms of diversity, - but overall, not bad.. 
looking forward to receiving the nomcom report

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/d79d109e/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 22 07:42:38 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:42:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804220442y23335a63ne1a3e16b9df242f5@mail.gmail.com>

very good choice.
Congratulations to all of nominated and good luck.

Baudouin

2008/4/22, lists at privaterra.info <lists at privaterra.info>:
>
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>
> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
> for the candidates.
>
> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
> included in the final report.
>
> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>
> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert Guerra
> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>
>
> -----
>
>
> # of nominations submitted: 33
>
> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>
> Statistics:
> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
> North America (3)
> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>
> Africa
>
> Natasha Primo
> Dawit Bekele
> Ken Lohento
>
> Asia
>
> Adam Peake
> Izumi Aizu
> Y. J. Park
> Iffat Rose Gill
>
> Europe
>
> William Drake
> Vittorio Bertola
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
>
> LAC
>
> Valeria Betancourt
> Graciela Selaimen
>
>
> North America
>
> Robin Gross
> Milton Mueller
> Michael Gurstein
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/58ebc3cd/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  Tue Apr 22 08:02:53 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:02:53 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>

Dear Wolfgang,

I do have a comment, as 2008 GigaNet symposium program committee  
chair: the program committee will welcome and evaluate any academic  
submission sent to it on any topic relevant to this year CFP, which  
is available at: http://tinyurl.com/ynsuuf
However, there is no foreseen cooperation with IGC on this, neither  
on GigaNet side, nor on IGC side. Academic members of IGC like you,  
me and many others are perfectly welcome to submit proposals, but  
let's not mix two different processes.

I do have another comment, as an IGC member: what you're proposing is  
a perfect topic to be submitted as an IGF workshop proposal.  
Actually, we discussed in early February the need for exploring the  
oversight of all these organizations' activities (the discussion was  
a follow-up on an IGP paper on ICANN oversight, if I well remember),  
and making an IGC statement on this issue at IGF February  
consultation was even proposed (by myself). But, as usual, the  
discussion got quickly lost through dilution..

I see two possible ways to propose a workshop on this:
- Either by extending the scope of the workshop IGP intends to  
propose with IGC co-sponsorship (currently: 'The Future of ICANN:  
After the JPA, What?'), subject to IGP agreement, of course
- Or by making it the enlarged focus of the v2.0 IGC workshop on  
'Role and mandate of the IGF', i.e. it would be this year on  
'Governance and enhanced cooperation: role and mandate of involved UN  
institutions' or 'UN post-WSIS activities: role and mandate of  
involved institutions'.

Finally, as Parminder recently reminded in his summary of ongoing IGC  
activities, there will be a letter sent by IGC to UN under Secretary  
general with regards to UN activities on enhanced cooperation, inter  
alia referring to his letter sent to ISOC on this matter. And we have  
made clear in our analysis of the situation that there was no reason  
for the IGC receiving such a letter from the UN under Secretary general.

Best,
Meryem

Le 22 avr. 08 à 10:58, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :

> Does somebody know what happened with the letter from UN Under  
> Secretary general Zhka to ISOC about enhanced cooperation? Did  
> ICANN, ITU, WIPO, UNESCO, IETF, NRO, ICC or the IGC similar  
> letters? Is there any feed back?
>
> Does somebody know what the result is from ITUs questionnaire with  
> regard to resolution 102? Is there a report back to the Council?
>
> Is there a programme committee for the ITU World Telecommmunication  
> Forum (schedule for end of March 2009 in Geneva) and if yes, do  
> they have enhanced cooperation on the agenda?
>
> Will it be discussed (and if yes by whom) in the forthoming OECD  
> Ministerial meeting in June in Seul?
>
> Will the UNCSTD have report for this years session? It became part  
> of its mandate after last years resolution.
>
> If nobody knows anything, the IGC could step in and encourages one  
> of its members to produce an overview in cooperation with GIGANET  
> for the Hyderabad meeting. We can use the May consultation just to  
> ask three or four basic questions to all the organisaitons,  
> participating in the Geneva meeting. It would be good to have such  
> an overview and to present it in Hyderabad.
>
> Any comments?
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Gesendet: Sa 19.04.2008 18:11
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'McTim'
> Betreff: [governance] enhanced cooperation
>
>
>
>> 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
>
>
>
> IT for Change proposes to develop a workshop proposal on this  
> theme, and, if agreed, IGC can co-sponsor, and/or its members join  
> in the effort.
>
>
>
> There is a lot of confusion around enhanced cooperation ( EC), and  
> I think it is the responsibility of the CS to get a debate going  
> for defining what is EC, and what is being done about it and what  
> needs to be done, and try to draw the important actors involved in  
> this process.
>
>
>
> There was some discussion under this head on this list a few days  
> back. Meryem gave her assessment of how things stand. We also  
> decided to write to the UN Under secretary General to find out  
> about the process (which we will do presently). There were other  
> contributions. For instance McTim wrote
>
>
>
>> 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 ......".
>
>
>
> Yes, McTim, that exactly what we want to do. What about doing it at  
> an IGF workshop.
>
>
>
> And when you say, in reply to Meryem,
>
>
>
>>> 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,.
>
>
>
> I must propose that the fiction is not being created by those who  
> are wondering where is EC, but by those who have unilaterally  
> decided that what they are doing is EC. You seem to suggest that  
> those who are questioning the existing (non) process themselves  
> really do not know what EC is or supposed to be. A thing is defined  
> both by what it is supposed to do, and also how. Tunis Agenda is  
> very clear on what EC is supposed to do. It does go over some  
> amount of detail, over several paras, to elucidate this. The need  
> is first identified, and the purpose for EC is put clearly to  
> 'develop globally applicable public policy principles'. Do you have  
> any doubt about it from the reading of TA.
>
>
>
> Are any of the EC attempts, you keep speaking about as already  
> happening, moving towards creating such global public policy  
> principles. Is so, can you please explain how, because I am very  
> interested if it were happening?
>
>
>
> On HOW this will development of 'public policy principles' happen,  
> TA found it a bit premature to decide on exact modalities and is no  
> doubt somewhat vague. This vagueness represents an incomplete  
> consensus on the exact process, and the effort for getting this  
> consensus has to  be kept up. So, TA asks for two set of processes.  
> One to be initiated by the SG which will try to create a process  
> whereby a method/ way etc for developing these public policy  
> principles can take shape. On the other hand, at clearly another  
> level, it also calls upon all institutions engaged with IG to work  
> towards creating conditions towards helping such a method/way of  
> developing such principles to develop and take anchor.
>
>
>
> Now, first of all I see no specific way in which all the  
> institutions you say are already doing EC as contributing " to  
> creating an environment that facilitates this development of public  
> policy principles" (para 70, TA). If you think they are, can you  
> tell me how?
>
>
>
> Now even if they were doing so, it in itself will only constitute  
> creating an environment for the 'primary purpose' of EC -  
> 'developing globally applicable public policy principles' and  
> cannot on its own, and to exclusion of the primary process (in  
> fact, it is often posited in opposition to this TAs' intended  
> primary process), be called THE EC process. And if someone is  
> calling it that, you know who is creating and 'persisting in fiction'.
>
>
>
> In any case, from whichever side you see it, there is enough  
> fiction and confusion around the EC concept to try to seek out some  
> facts through an IGF workshop.
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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_I
>
>> CC_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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr 22 09:32:10 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:32:10 -0400
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC70D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Although I would have to consult with other IGP Scientific Committee
members, I myself would look favorably upon well-thought-out attempts to
fold the "enhanced cooperation" theme into the "After the JPA" theme.
Indeed, Wolfgang's questions are all good ones. Rather than having an
aimless discussion about them, if he or anyone else can find out the
answers to them or can get specific people on the panel who know the
answers, it would be welcome.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
> 
> I see two possible ways to propose a workshop on this:
> - Either by extending the scope of the workshop IGP intends to  
> propose with IGC co-sponsorship (currently: 'The Future of ICANN:  
> After the JPA, What?'), subject to IGP agreement, of course
> - Or by making it the enlarged focus of the v2.0 IGC workshop on  
> 'Role and mandate of the IGF', i.e. it would be this year on  

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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Apr 22 09:39:42 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:39:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC70E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Very fast work, thanks to the Nomcom volunteers and to Robt. for running
it so smoothly! And, in the slim chance that I break into the charmed
circle of MAG, the caucus's confidence in me will not be misplaced. 

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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Tue Apr 22 10:16:44 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:16:44 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC70E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

I echo Milton's thanks to the group, skepticism on the prospects (once
bitten, twice shy), and commitment in the event of a surprise.

Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last time, when
info on the nominees and process was posted?
http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
everyone who's been nominated...

Best,

Bill


On 4/22/08 3:39 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> Very fast work, thanks to the Nomcom volunteers and to Robt. for running
> it so smoothly! And, in the slim chance that I break into the charmed
> circle of MAG, the caucus's confidence in me will not be misplaced. 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr 22 10:37:59 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:37:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <EBEDCD51-7BF1-4686-B290-0B7601D6E45B@ras.eu.org>


Le 22 avr. 08 à 16:16, William Drake a écrit :

> Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last  
> time, when
> info on the nominees and process was posted?
> http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
> In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
> pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
> everyone who's been nominated...

Yes, we did, and we had this information before the nomcom started  
its work last time:
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml
This page shows the list of nominees the previous NomCom has  
considered, with their bios, their statement of intent, their  
endorsements, etc. The http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for- 
IGF-MAG.html page only shows the nominees selected by former IGC nomcom.

I think it matters a lot, actually, in terms of IGC internal  
transparency and accountability. And since the current nomcom rightly  
asked, in its call for nominations and among other requirements, for:

"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.",

I would be interested, as an IGC member, in reading such brief  
reports from concerned nominees, especially since I see from the  
nomcom results that some of them have been selected again. These  
information will certainly be provided in the nomcom report, although  
concerned nomineeds would have shown some consideration to the IGC by  
posting these information to the list.

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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 22 10:47:45 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:47:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] EU i2010 MidTerm Review
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <EBEDCD51-7BF1-4686-B290-0B7601D6E45B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C8B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/mid_term_review_2008/index_en.htm
 
Interesting to see that IG does not play a role in the review.
 
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 ca at rits.org.br  Tue Apr 22 12:03:24 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 13:03:24 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>

Hi people,

My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only two 
candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean), while all 
other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that Europe and 
North America (developed regions) have three each. I do not think the 
NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance, to put it 
diplomatically.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> 
> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
> for the candidates.
> 
> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
> included in the final report.
> 
> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> 
> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert Guerra
> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> 
> # of nominations submitted: 33
> 
> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> 
> Statistics:
> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
> North America (3)
> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> 
> Africa
> 
> Natasha Primo
> Dawit Bekele
> Ken Lohento
> 
> Asia
> 
> Adam Peake
> Izumi Aizu
> Y. J. Park
> Iffat Rose Gill
> 
> Europe
> 
> William Drake
> Vittorio Bertola
> Jeanette Hofmann
> 
> 
> LAC
> 
> Valeria Betancourt
> Graciela Selaimen
> 
> 
> North America
> 
> Robin Gross
> Milton Mueller
> Michael Gurstein
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Tue Apr 22 12:06:27 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 12:06:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <BCFCB3FE-A729-4E32-8542-7E486F375BEC@psg.com>

hi,

i will post on http://www.igcaucus.org/ whatever the nomcom gives me  
to post.

a.

On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:16, William Drake wrote:
> I echo Milton's thanks to the group, skepticism on the prospects (once
> bitten, twice shy), and commitment in the event of a surprise.
>
> Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last  
> time, when
> info on the nominees and process was posted?
> http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
> In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
> pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
> everyone who's been nominated...
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 4/22/08 3:39 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>> Very fast work, thanks to the Nomcom volunteers and to Robt. for  
>> running
>> it so smoothly! And, in the slim chance that I break into the charmed
>> circle of MAG, the caucus's confidence in me will not be misplaced.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 22 12:21:55 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:51:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <C432C304.110C4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080422162208.8954A6784F@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Bill, Thanks for the clarifications. 

 

We urgently need someone to take this work up. Adam, you had shown some
interest in making this a mid-term review of the IGF. Or you Vittorio, you
can bring some continuity for the last years group. Lee? Willie?. Anyone
else.

 

We already have three members - Karen, Baudouin and Jeremy - ready to be in
the WG. Need a convener. I assure anyone who takes this job up that it will
quite fulfilling :-), and not too taxing, as Bill explained.

 

Thanks

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:48 AM
To: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops

 

Hi Parminder,

On the role and mandate workshop:  Having done it last year, I don't think
it's right for me to do it again, and anyway I'm in the jurisdiction group.
My suggestion would be that we get new blood involved, people who've been
active in the caucus, have thought a lot about this, but can broker between
different tendencies etc.   Some obvious convener candidates like Willie,
Lee, others, come to mind if they'd be interested... 

It may be that part of what's holding people back is the prospect of a
complicated and time consuming process, but in reality, this really
shouldn't be too hard.  It's not necessary to renegotiate the ws description
from scratch and totally rethink the co-sponsors and speakers in the next
nine days.  Last year's event went well and everyone seemed to come away
fairly happy (including some parties that fretted about it in advance), so
we seemingly established a certain level of trust and understanding that the
event is useful and won't blow up the joint.  I assume the MAG would expect
to see a proposal for a v.2 from us (or more to the point, would be rather
surprised not to), and that we shouldn't have to re-convince them too
elaborately as long as we cross the T's and dot the I's in terms of being MS
with diverse views etc.  So why not resubmit largely the same text and reach
out to the more or less the same kinds of co-sponsors and non-CS speakers we
had last year (ICC/Ayesha, ISOC/Bill, developing country/India, developed
country/EC, etc), come up with three new IGC speakers with varying shades of
positions, submit whatever we have by April 30, and then add later as
needed.  

BTW, for reference, the report on last year's version of the ws is now at 
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30.

Best,

Bill


On 4/21/08 4:57 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
 
1. Role and mandate of the IGF
 
Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill and
Vittorio from the last year's group (Karen has said no to convening, and I
do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours, will
one of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the last
year's group will be good. 
 
2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction
 
The WG is working
 
3. 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'

IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if
anyone from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions. 
 
4. Rights based approach the Internet - Implications for IG
 
A draft is being developed. 
 
As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground to
propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th - 29th. 
 
Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these proposals,
it will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and the
appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right away.
 
Thanks
 
Parminder  
 
 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net%5d>  
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] IGC workshops

Hi All
 
This is where we stand on our workshop proposals. 
 

1.	Role and mandate of the IGF 


The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam and
others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF at
the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
make this a regular IGF feature. 
 
Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop proposals
(http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given says;
"Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the mandate
of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this is an
important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year, that
it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops. 
 

1.	Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues 

A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal. 
 

1.	Internationalization  


As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
(and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.
 

1.	A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG 


Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will soon
be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to join
this WG is welcome. 
 
If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them in
the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need to
be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions. 
 

1.	Name of proposed workshop 
2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF. 
3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
workshop. 
4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
gender balance. 
5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
issues under discussion? 
6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF. 
7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
organized in the past. 
8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you
submit a workshop report? 
9.	9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?



The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See
http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm>
<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm> . For answering question 9,
please see the list of topics mentioned on this link, though workshops
outside these topics can also be proposed. 


Thanks. Parminder 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/f1c347f4/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 22 12:35:51 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:05:51 +0530
Subject: FW: [governance] coordinator elections
Message-ID: <20080422163602.D24C7A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net>



I am posting below a process I mentioned for preparing the voters list for
the co-coordinator election. I received only one (positive) response. 

By end of tomorrow I expect anytime to start the process of sending these
emails for confirming membership.

If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.

Parminder 

(from my email below)

> 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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 2:36 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'; 'Jeanette
> Hofmann'
> Subject: [governance] 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


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 22 12:52:39 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:52:39 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <140138.63307.qm@web25507.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/699c0e34/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  Tue Apr 22 13:01:38 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:01:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>

Hi Carlos,

I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much. Since it 
is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share on the 
MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected. More 
candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more choice. It 
certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
jeanette

Carlos Afonso wrote:
> Hi people,
> 
> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only two 
> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean), while all 
> other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that Europe and 
> North America (developed regions) have three each. I do not think the 
> NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance, to put it 
> diplomatically.
> 
> fraternal regards
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>>
>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process 
>> followed by
>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio 
>> profiles
>> for the candidates.
>>
>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two 
>> things -
>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
>> included in the final report.
>>
>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and 
>> the
>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>>
>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert Guerra
>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>>
>> # of nominations submitted: 33
>>
>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>>
>> Statistics:
>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC 
>> (2),
>> North America (3)
>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>>
>> Africa
>>
>> Natasha Primo
>> Dawit Bekele
>> Ken Lohento
>>
>> Asia
>>
>> Adam Peake
>> Izumi Aizu
>> Y. J. Park
>> Iffat Rose Gill
>>
>> Europe
>>
>> William Drake
>> Vittorio Bertola
>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>
>>
>> LAC
>>
>> Valeria Betancourt
>> Graciela Selaimen
>>
>>
>> North America
>>
>> Robin Gross
>> Milton Mueller
>> Michael Gurstein
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr 22 13:17:52 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:17:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <EBEDCD51-7BF1-4686-B290-0B7601D6E45B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

As per Meryem's request below please find my brief bio and Statement.

Best to all and thanks to the NomCom for their overall efforts.

Please note that if selected I would see my responsibilities both in the
context of reporting from and to the IGC but also from and to grassroots
ICT4D practitioners, through the context of the Global Telecentre Alliance;
and through a current involvement with a variety of Indigenous Peoples ICT
organizations and initiatives.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
Sent: April 22, 2008 7:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates

Le 22 avr. 08 à 16:16, William Drake a écrit :

> Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last
> time, when
> info on the nominees and process was posted?
> http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
> In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
> pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
> everyone who's been nominated...

Yes, we did, and we had this information before the nomcom started  
its work last time:
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml
This page shows the list of nominees the previous NomCom has  
considered, with their bios, their statement of intent, their  
endorsements, etc. The http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for- 
IGF-MAG.html page only shows the nominees selected by former IGC nomcom.

I think it matters a lot, actually, in terms of IGC internal  
transparency and accountability. And since the current nomcom rightly  
asked, in its call for nominations and among other requirements, for:

"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.",

I would be interested, as an IGC member, in reading such brief  
reports from concerned nominees, especially since I see from the  
nomcom results that some of them have been selected again. These  
information will certainly be provided in the nomcom report, although  
concerned nomineeds would have shown some consideration to the IGC by  
posting these information to the list.

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bio-MAG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 25088 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/1167d8f4/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Statement of Capability-MAG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 24576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080422/1167d8f4/attachment-0001.doc>

From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Tue Apr 22 13:29:43 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:29:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org>

Thanks a lot, Michael.
Meryem

Le 22 avr. 08 à 19:17, Michael Gurstein a écrit :

> As per Meryem's request below please find my brief bio and Statement.
>
> Best to all and thanks to the NomCom for their overall efforts.
>
> Please note that if selected I would see my responsibilities both  
> in the
> context of reporting from and to the IGC but also from and to  
> grassroots
> ICT4D practitioners, through the context of the Global Telecentre  
> Alliance;
> and through a current involvement with a variety of Indigenous  
> Peoples ICT
> organizations and initiatives.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: April 22, 2008 7:38 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
>
> Le 22 avr. 08 à 16:16, William Drake a écrit :
>
>> Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last
>> time, when
>> info on the nominees and process was posted?
>> http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
>> In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
>> pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
>> everyone who's been nominated...
>
> Yes, we did, and we had this information before the nomcom started
> its work last time:
> http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml
> This page shows the list of nominees the previous NomCom has
> considered, with their bios, their statement of intent, their
> endorsements, etc. The http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-
> IGF-MAG.html page only shows the nominees selected by former IGC  
> nomcom.
>
> I think it matters a lot, actually, in terms of IGC internal
> transparency and accountability. And since the current nomcom rightly
> asked, in its call for nominations and among other requirements, for:
>
> "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.",
>
> I would be interested, as an IGC member, in reading such brief
> reports from concerned nominees, especially since I see from the
> nomcom results that some of them have been selected again. These
> information will certainly be provided in the nomcom report, although
> concerned nomineeds would have shown some consideration to the IGC by
> posting these information to the list.
>
> 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<bio- 
> MAG.doc><Statement of Capability-MAG.doc>

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Tue Apr 22 14:19:41 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:19:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080422163602.D24C7A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080422163602.D24C7A6C89@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <7A8C3D6E-4A53-449F-90B6-9D4328DA814B@psg.com>


On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:

> If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.

>>
>> "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.
>


i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of  
voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any  
separate oaths myself.

i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really  
supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to  
what the charter required.

if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.

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  Tue Apr 22 16:18:32 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 06:18:32 +1000
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <7A8C3D6E-4A53-449F-90B6-9D4328DA814B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <027c01c8a4b6$10991490$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Agree with avri

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: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: 23 April 2008 04:20
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.
> 
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> 
> 
> i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of
> voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any
> separate oaths myself.
> 
> i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really
> supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to
> what the charter required.
> 
> if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
> 
> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date:
> 22/04/2008 15:51
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 22/04/2008
15:51
 

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Apr 22 17:52:17 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:52:17 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>

Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still does 
not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to all 
others.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much. Since it 
> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share on the 
> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected. More 
> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more choice. It 
> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> jeanette
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> Hi people,
>>
>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only two 
>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean), while 
>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that 
>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I do not 
>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance, to 
>> put it diplomatically.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>>>
>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process 
>>> followed by
>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio 
>>> profiles
>>> for the candidates.
>>>
>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two 
>>> things -
>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
>>> included in the final report.
>>>
>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration 
>>> and the
>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>>>
>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra
>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>>
>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
>>>
>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>>>
>>> Statistics:
>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC 
>>> (2),
>>> North America (3)
>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>>>
>>> Africa
>>>
>>> Natasha Primo
>>> Dawit Bekele
>>> Ken Lohento
>>>
>>> Asia
>>>
>>> Adam Peake
>>> Izumi Aizu
>>> Y. J. Park
>>> Iffat Rose Gill
>>>
>>> Europe
>>>
>>> William Drake
>>> Vittorio Bertola
>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>
>>>
>>> LAC
>>>
>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>> Graciela Selaimen
>>>
>>>
>>> North America
>>>
>>> Robin Gross
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> Michael Gurstein
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr 23 00:21:07 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:51:07 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <7A8C3D6E-4A53-449F-90B6-9D4328DA814B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080423042118.BBE9DA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>


I have been requesting the caucus to sort out some organizational issues,
and I think this particular issue must be sorted out 'now', to give me the
right directions to proceed further on the matter of co-coordinator
elections.

The issue is about a membership list of IG Caucus, for the voting process. 

> if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.

Avri, There should be no doubt that in driving the election process I have
no intention other than to go by the charter, as it exists, and my personal
opinion on this does not count. In fact, I had spoken of sending out these
emails confirming subscription to the charter a few times, the latest many
days ago with a 4 days comments period (only Jeremy replied, and said he was
fine with the process). However I still did not send the emails out because
I suspected that some members may have different ideas on this (proven right
from your email) and therefore came back, once again, to the list yesterday.


I also took as an endorsement of my reading of the charter when on my
proposal to send out an email to IGF attendee inviting them to join IGC
Milton commented (only comment received)  that I should add a line that
subscribing to the charter allows one to vote. The full text of the email,
with the added line, was then again put on IGC before it was sent out. 

 So the only thing relevant here, at this moment of time, is the reading of
the intention of the charter. 

As I said I have asked for caucus's opinion on this several times. 

There are two part of the charter
(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html )relevant to this
issue. One is the part on 'membership', and the second on 'voting process'.

The two read as follows.

Membership

The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the
same rights and duties.

(after a couple of other sections follows the part on voting process)

Voting Process

Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the
election will be given a voter account.

As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must
affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to
self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published
after the election with the results of the election.

Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals
process.

(end)

In my reading there is probably (though only probably) a small incongruity
between the two which is at the root of the issue under discussion.

The membership part is clear that members are those who ' subscribe to the
charter of the caucus'. Clearly, those who do NOT subscribe are not members.
Does anyone have any doubt over this reading?

I read the membership section of the charter as being at a higher level then
the voting section, if a possible issue of apparent incongruity has to be
resolved. (pl also comment on this construction.)

However, the incongruity may not be real.

The 'voting process' part says, all those subscribed to the list on a
particular day - 2 months before the election - will be given a voter
account. (if it meant membership of IGC wonder why the membership part
didn't say that as well, it would have been easy and direct.) I take the
major intent of this line to be contained in the part ' subscribed to the
list at least two (2) months before the election', to avoid the possibility
of last minute registrations, and to allow the members some time to know the
issues etc a bit.

Then it says that "voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of
the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this
charter....." That elsewhere has just one criterion mentioned - subscription
to the charter'. Therefore I don't see any problem in directly ascertaining
if one subscribes to the charter, and therefore accepts membership, rather
than asking 'do you think you are a member as per the criterion mentioned
elsewhere in the charter'. 

That's essentially the difference between the process I have proposed and
what, Avri, you propose. I don't see why you are making so much out of it,
and hyping it with language like you don't want to be swearing an oath. 

'The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision
based on the criteria defined.' This may be the part which makes you think
that by the very act of voting one is a member, and adherence to the charter
is assumed. The meaning and intent of this line here is not very clear, but
I take its meaning more in the context of civil society identity of a
member, which is not a stated criterion of membership but a strongly implied
one (see the mention of 'CS' thrice in the mission statement). We know that
this can be controversial identity to judge and therefore the charter leaves
it to every person's self-identification, for the purpose of voting here. 

In any case if there were at all any real or perceived misalignment between
the membership part and the 'voting process' part I will take that the
'membership' part will hold greater authoritativeness. 

In any case, while I can see that a class of members can be non voters, I
cant see some voters being non-members. That looks quite illogical.
Therefore clearly all voters must have endorsed the charter. I am merely
asking them, have they considered this issue, and done so. I know many IGC
list participants may not want to subscribe to the charter identifying us an
a advocacy group committed to such and such, and I am merely giving them a
right to do so, and know that in that case, as per the group's charter, they
shouldn't vote.

And this issue, in case of the IGC list, as we all know is a very real one.
There are many on this list who are here to look up for information, or even
to participate in a debate, but not as  a part of an advocacy group,
committed to collective action along certain lines, as constituted by the
charter. So, the numbers on the list is much larger than those who would
self-identify as charter endorsing members. We know that only  a small part
voted during the charter part (60 or so) and among them we still do not know
which were the ones  (all voters minus 3) who affirmed the charter. 

And we ourselves often identify this dual nature of IGC - as a discussion
forum, and as an advocacy group, and have developed some level of comfort
with this dual identity. 

I think not having a list of full members of the caucus who have endorsed
the charter is a very real issue, and we do not have this list at present. A
few members have publicly asked me for this list, most recently Adam, and I
have not replied, or replied in some embarrassment describing the current
situation. 

So, I request member's views on this issue of (1) how to prepare the voters
list for co-coordinator elections, and what process to follow (read the
enclosed email for the process proposed by me) and (2) whether we need or
don't need a list of members of IGF as defined by the charter. 


At this point, since we are in the middle of a process, we are only seeking
these views 'as per the members' reading of the charter' which we need to
follow for IGC's organizational processes. Other more general views may be
offered, but with clear separation from the view 'as per reading of the
charter'. Thanks.

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:50 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:
> 
> > If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.
> 
> >>
> >> "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.
> >
> 
> 
> i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of
> voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any
> separate oaths myself.
> 
> i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really
> supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to
> what the charter required.
> 
> if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:10 +0530
Size: 40582
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/7e5d51eb/attachment.eml>

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Apr 23 00:40:16 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:40:16 +0900
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080423042118.BBE9DA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080423042118.BBE9DA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240801c4346acaac6f@[192.168.1.3]>

If someone has been subscribed to the list for 
two months they should be sent an email asking 
them if they wish to become a member of the 
caucus and if they subscribe to the IGC charter 
(which means they have read the charter 
<http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html > 
and accept the provisions of the charter.)  If 
they answer yes, they are members and can be 
added to a member list. 

I expect whoever is the list admin should be able to see a subscription date.

They current member list would be whoever was 
given a vote in the last ballot held (appeals 
team?)  And anyone subscribed for at least the 
past two months (the charter says "Each person 
who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) 
months before the election will be given a voter 
account.")   Suggest that once we agree what 
defines membership/voter pool, then we can say 
the election process has started and take the 
two-months back from that date.

Adam




>I have been requesting the caucus to sort out some organizational issues,
>and I think this particular issue must be sorted out 'now', to give me the
>right directions to proceed further on the matter of co-coordinator
>elections.
>
>The issue is about a membership list of IG Caucus, for the voting process.
>
>>  if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
>
>Avri, There should be no doubt that in driving the election process I have
>no intention other than to go by the charter, as it exists, and my personal
>opinion on this does not count. In fact, I had spoken of sending out these
>emails confirming subscription to the charter a few times, the latest many
>days ago with a 4 days comments period (only Jeremy replied, and said he was
>fine with the process). However I still did not send the emails out because
>I suspected that some members may have different ideas on this (proven right
>from your email) and therefore came back, once again, to the list yesterday.
>
>
>I also took as an endorsement of my reading of the charter when on my
>proposal to send out an email to IGF attendee inviting them to join IGC
>Milton commented (only comment received)  that I should add a line that
>subscribing to the charter allows one to vote. The full text of the email,
>with the added line, was then again put on IGC before it was sent out.
>
>  So the only thing relevant here, at this moment of time, is the reading of
>the intention of the charter.
>
>As I said I have asked for caucus's opinion on this several times.
>
>There are two part of the charter
>(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html )relevant to this
>issue. One is the part on 'membership', and the second on 'voting process'.
>
>The two read as follows.
>
>Membership
>
>The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
>subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the
>same rights and duties.
>
>(after a couple of other sections follows the part on voting process)
>
>Voting Process
>
>Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the
>election will be given a voter account.
>
>As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
>are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
>this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must
>affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to
>self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
>criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published
>after the election with the results of the election.
>
>Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals
>process.
>
>(end)
>
>In my reading there is probably (though only probably) a small incongruity
>between the two which is at the root of the issue under discussion.
>
>The membership part is clear that members are those who ' subscribe to the
>charter of the caucus'. Clearly, those who do NOT subscribe are not members.
>Does anyone have any doubt over this reading?
>
>I read the membership section of the charter as being at a higher level then
>the voting section, if a possible issue of apparent incongruity has to be
>resolved. (pl also comment on this construction.)
>
>However, the incongruity may not be real.
>
>The 'voting process' part says, all those subscribed to the list on a
>particular day - 2 months before the election - will be given a voter
>account. (if it meant membership of IGC wonder why the membership part
>didn't say that as well, it would have been easy and direct.) I take the
>major intent of this line to be contained in the part ' subscribed to the
>list at least two (2) months before the election', to avoid the possibility
>of last minute registrations, and to allow the members some time to know the
>issues etc a bit.
>
>Then it says that "voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of
>the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this
>charter....." That elsewhere has just one criterion mentioned - subscription
>to the charter'. Therefore I don't see any problem in directly ascertaining
>if one subscribes to the charter, and therefore accepts membership, rather
>than asking 'do you think you are a member as per the criterion mentioned
>elsewhere in the charter'.
>
>That's essentially the difference between the process I have proposed and
>what, Avri, you propose. I don't see why you are making so much out of it,
>and hyping it with language like you don't want to be swearing an oath.
>
>'The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision
>based on the criteria defined.' This may be the part which makes you think
>that by the very act of voting one is a member, and adherence to the charter
>is assumed. The meaning and intent of this line here is not very clear, but
>I take its meaning more in the context of civil society identity of a
>member, which is not a stated criterion of membership but a strongly implied
>one (see the mention of 'CS' thrice in the mission statement). We know that
>this can be controversial identity to judge and therefore the charter leaves
>it to every person's self-identification, for the purpose of voting here.
>
>In any case if there were at all any real or perceived misalignment between
>the membership part and the 'voting process' part I will take that the
>'membership' part will hold greater authoritativeness.
>
>In any case, while I can see that a class of members can be non voters, I
>cant see some voters being non-members. That looks quite illogical.
>Therefore clearly all voters must have endorsed the charter. I am merely
>asking them, have they considered this issue, and done so. I know many IGC
>list participants may not want to subscribe to the charter identifying us an
>a advocacy group committed to such and such, and I am merely giving them a
>right to do so, and know that in that case, as per the group's charter, they
>shouldn't vote.
>
>And this issue, in case of the IGC list, as we all know is a very real one.
>There are many on this list who are here to look up for information, or even
>to participate in a debate, but not as  a part of an advocacy group,
>committed to collective action along certain lines, as constituted by the
>charter. So, the numbers on the list is much larger than those who would
>self-identify as charter endorsing members. We know that only  a small part
>voted during the charter part (60 or so) and among them we still do not know
>which were the ones  (all voters minus 3) who affirmed the charter.
>
>And we ourselves often identify this dual nature of IGC - as a discussion
>forum, and as an advocacy group, and have developed some level of comfort
>with this dual identity.
>
>I think not having a list of full members of the caucus who have endorsed
>the charter is a very real issue, and we do not have this list at present. A
>few members have publicly asked me for this list, most recently Adam, and I
>have not replied, or replied in some embarrassment describing the current
>situation.
>
>So, I request member's views on this issue of (1) how to prepare the voters
>list for co-coordinator elections, and what process to follow (read the
>enclosed email for the process proposed by me) and (2) whether we need or
>don't need a list of members of IGF as defined by the charter.
>
>
>At this point, since we are in the middle of a process, we are only seeking
>these views 'as per the members' reading of the charter' which we need to
>follow for IGC's organizational processes. Other more general views may be
>offered, but with clear separation from the view 'as per reading of the
>charter'. Thanks.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:50 PM
>>  To: Governance Caucus
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
>>
>>
>>  On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:
>>
>>  > If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.
>>
>>  >>
>>  >> "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.
>>  >
>>
>>
>>  i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of
>>  voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any
>>  separate oaths myself.
>>
>>  i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really
>>  supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to
>>  what the charter required.
>>
>>  if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
>>
>>  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
>
>Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
>	"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
>	"'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'" 
><wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,
>	"'Jeanette Hofmann'" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
>Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
>Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:10 +0530
>Message-ID: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC at smtp3.electricembers.net>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0074_01C8A527.8F437710"
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on shire.symonds.net
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=6.0 
>tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_PASS 
>autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.4
>In-Reply-To: 
><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C26 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>Thread-Index: AcieVl3pAp6vmxFPRKGxKVCj7NJiSwAAFARgAAGFyXQAHcDI8A==
>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send 
>questions or false-positive reports to 
>help at electricembers.net
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-Envelope-From: parminder at itforchange.net
>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>X-Sequence: 3524
>X-no-archive: yes
>List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
>X-Antiabuse: This header was added to track 
>abuse, please include it with any abuse report
>
>
>
>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>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>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>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>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>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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, 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
>>
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, 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
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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
>
>
>Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
>	"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
>To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
>	"'Adam Peake'" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
>Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:35:15 +0530
>Message-ID: <20080324110530.296D5E0451 at smtp3.electricembers.net>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01C8A527.8F437710"
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
>X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on shire.symonds.net
>X-Spam-Level:
>X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=6.0 
>tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS 
>autolearn=ham version=3.1.4
>In-Reply-To: <p06240800c40a4695b03d@[192.168.1.4]>
>Thread-Index: AciMtllJ1GJb9JsTSvqmhKfARkynNAA5dmOQ
>X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send 
>questions or false-positive reports to 
>help at electricembers.net
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-Envelope-From: parminder at itforchange.net
>X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>X-Sequence: 3240
>X-no-archive: yes
>List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
>X-Antiabuse: This header was added to track 
>abuse, please include it with any abuse report
>
>
>
>  > Do we have a list of people who signed the charter?
>>
>>  Adam
>
>In fact, this is an issue which has been bothering me a bit, and is partly
>responsible for the delay in co-coordinator elections. I want the group's
>advice on this.
>
>The charter clearly defines the membership of the IGC as constituting those
>who have endorsed its charter.
>
>We have a list of 58 people who voted during the charter vote. But among
>these, 3 voted against. So, we do not have a list of those who voted for
>
>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.
>
>I would much prefer a prior endorsement of the charter, rather than an act
>which is a (secondary) part of voting. But that is only my personal view. I
>think endorsement of the charter should be a clear and positive step in
>enrolling as a full member of the IGC.
>
>To All CS Rio attendees whom I wrote an email inviting them to join the IGC
>(and many have) I clearly asked whether they also endorse the charter, and
>many have. This is the only clear list of charter endorsees that I have.
>
>Members' views are solicited on this. Thanks.
>
>Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:49 PM
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
>>
>>  I volunteer if there are no objections.
>>
>>  A member of the MAG commenting on other
>>  "incumbent" members might either be helpful or
>>  might be an undue/unfair influence.  Not sure
>>  which.  But worth discussing.
>>
>>  I understand that if selected I wouldn't be
>>  eligible for the list being chosen. But should
>>  that happen I would not withdraw my name from
>>  consideration by the SG as either through
>>  self-nomination or if recommended by some CS
>>  group. I hope members of the appeals teams would
>>  also not be subject to any restriction.
>>
>>  Do we have a list of people who signed the charter?
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>  >Hi All
>>  >
>>  >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers.
>>  >
>>  >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don¹t reach 25.
>>  >
>>  >(1)     Should we draw 5 members in any case
>>  >from the pool available, say, by the end of
>>  >Monday?
>>  >(2)     Should we go for direct elections of MAG
>  > >nominees (we have a voting software now, which
>>  >has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose
>>  >software I understand is being used by many
>>  >other IG orgs. And groups)
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >Parminder
>>  >
>>  >The present list of volunteers is as follows.
>>  >
>>  >Milton Mueller
>>  >Jeremy Malcolm
>>  >Suresh Ramasubramanian
>>  >Jeremy Shtern
>>  >Robert Guerra
>>  >Bret Faucett
>>  >SCHOMBE Baudouin
>>  >Carlos Afonso
>>  >Ian Peter
>>  >Lee W. McKnight
>>  >Maja Anjelkovic
>>  >Gurumurthy K
>>  >Rudi Vansnick
>>  >Karen Banks
>>  >Michael Gurstein
>>  >David Goldstein
>>  >Philippe Dam
>>  >Anita Gurumuthy
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >____________________________________________________________
>>  >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  >To be removed from the list, 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
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  To be removed from the list, 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
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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

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

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


From vcretu at cmb.md  Wed Apr 23 02:08:12 2008
From: vcretu at cmb.md (vcretu at cmb.md)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
    <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
    <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>

Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about Europe
we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from these
parts of the world?!

regards from Moldova,
Veronica Cretu




> Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still does
> not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to all
> others.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much. Since it
>> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share on the
>> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected. More
>> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more choice. It
>> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
>> jeanette
>>
>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>> Hi people,
>>>
>>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only two
>>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean), while
>>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
>>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I do not
>>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance, to
>>> put it diplomatically.
>>>
>>> fraternal regards
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
>>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
>>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>>>>
>>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
>>>> followed by
>>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation
>>>> for
>>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio
>>>> profiles
>>>> for the candidates.
>>>>
>>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below
>>>> please
>>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two
>>>> things -
>>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
>>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will
>>>> be
>>>> included in the final report.
>>>>
>>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration
>>>> and the
>>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>>>>
>>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Robert Guerra
>>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
>>>>
>>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>>>>
>>>> Statistics:
>>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC
>>>> (2),
>>>> North America (3)
>>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>>>>
>>>> Africa
>>>>
>>>> Natasha Primo
>>>> Dawit Bekele
>>>> Ken Lohento
>>>>
>>>> Asia
>>>>
>>>> Adam Peake
>>>> Izumi Aizu
>>>> Y. J. Park
>>>> Iffat Rose Gill
>>>>
>>>> Europe
>>>>
>>>> William Drake
>>>> Vittorio Bertola
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LAC
>>>>
>>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>>> Graciela Selaimen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> North America
>>>>
>>>> Robin Gross
>>>> Milton Mueller
>>>> Michael Gurstein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>




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

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


From vb at bertola.eu  Wed Apr 23 02:51:41 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:51:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <480EDC7D.6040100@bertola.eu>

lists at privaterra.info ha scritto:
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.

Thanks for the nomination, it really came unexpected as this time I 
hadn't put forward my name myself, but some people from the caucus 
insisted that I would be a good candidate - one more reason to 
appreciate the trust and commit new time and energy to the IGF if 
eventually selected.

Anyway, I guess that at most 4-5 people from our list, including 
incumbents, will be picked - so it will be extremely hard to have a 
fully representative and diverse mix in any case. This makes it even 
more important that the few people who will actually be on the MAG 
commit to circulating as much information as possible.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr 23 03:04:31 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:34:31 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <p06240801c4346acaac6f@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <20080423070442.87A4FA6C9C@smtp2.electricembers.net>


> If someone has been subscribed to the list for
> two months they should be sent an email asking
> them if they wish to become a member of the
> caucus and if they subscribe to the IGC charter
> (which means they have read the charter
> <http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html >
> and accept the provisions of the charter.)  If
> they answer yes, they are members and can be
> added to a member list.
>

That’s exactly what is proposed by me to be done. I mean to send an email to
all those who have been on this list for two months. Almost all those who
joined after that joined in response to my specific invite, and in that the
charter endorsement thing is mentioned. Many have explicitly said they
endorse the charter, and I have that list. 

> I expect whoever is the list admin should be able to see a subscription
> date.

Avri has shared such  a list with me. 

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:10 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
> Importance: High
> 
> If someone has been subscribed to the list for
> two months they should be sent an email asking
> them if they wish to become a member of the
> caucus and if they subscribe to the IGC charter
> (which means they have read the charter
> <http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html >
> and accept the provisions of the charter.)  If
> they answer yes, they are members and can be
> added to a member list.
> 
> I expect whoever is the list admin should be able to see a subscription
> date.
> 
> They current member list would be whoever was
> given a vote in the last ballot held (appeals
> team?)  And anyone subscribed for at least the
> past two months (the charter says "Each person
> who is subscribed to the list at least two (2)
> months before the election will be given a voter
> account.")   Suggest that once we agree what
> defines membership/voter pool, then we can say
> the election process has started and take the
> two-months back from that date.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >I have been requesting the caucus to sort out some organizational issues,
> >and I think this particular issue must be sorted out 'now', to give me
> the
> >right directions to proceed further on the matter of co-coordinator
> >elections.
> >
> >The issue is about a membership list of IG Caucus, for the voting
> process.
> >
> >>  if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
> >
> >Avri, There should be no doubt that in driving the election process I
> have
> >no intention other than to go by the charter, as it exists, and my
> personal
> >opinion on this does not count. In fact, I had spoken of sending out
> these
> >emails confirming subscription to the charter a few times, the latest
> many
> >days ago with a 4 days comments period (only Jeremy replied, and said he
> was
> >fine with the process). However I still did not send the emails out
> because
> >I suspected that some members may have different ideas on this (proven
> right
> >from your email) and therefore came back, once again, to the list
> yesterday.
> >
> >
> >I also took as an endorsement of my reading of the charter when on my
> >proposal to send out an email to IGF attendee inviting them to join IGC
> >Milton commented (only comment received)  that I should add a line that
> >subscribing to the charter allows one to vote. The full text of the
> email,
> >with the added line, was then again put on IGC before it was sent out.
> >
> >  So the only thing relevant here, at this moment of time, is the reading
> of
> >the intention of the charter.
> >
> >As I said I have asked for caucus's opinion on this several times.
> >
> >There are two part of the charter
> >(http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html )relevant to this
> >issue. One is the part on 'membership', and the second on 'voting
> process'.
> >
> >The two read as follows.
> >
> >Membership
> >
> >The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who
> >subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have
> the
> >same rights and duties.
> >
> >(after a couple of other sections follows the part on voting process)
> >
> >Voting Process
> >
> >Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before
> the
> >election will be given a voter account.
> >
> >As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that
> they
> >are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere
> in
> >this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter
> must
> >affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to
> >self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the
> >criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be
> published
> >after the election with the results of the election.
> >
> >Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the
> appeals
> >process.
> >
> >(end)
> >
> >In my reading there is probably (though only probably) a small
> incongruity
> >between the two which is at the root of the issue under discussion.
> >
> >The membership part is clear that members are those who ' subscribe to
> the
> >charter of the caucus'. Clearly, those who do NOT subscribe are not
> members.
> >Does anyone have any doubt over this reading?
> >
> >I read the membership section of the charter as being at a higher level
> then
> >the voting section, if a possible issue of apparent incongruity has to be
> >resolved. (pl also comment on this construction.)
> >
> >However, the incongruity may not be real.
> >
> >The 'voting process' part says, all those subscribed to the list on a
> >particular day - 2 months before the election - will be given a voter
> >account. (if it meant membership of IGC wonder why the membership part
> >didn't say that as well, it would have been easy and direct.) I take the
> >major intent of this line to be contained in the part ' subscribed to the
> >list at least two (2) months before the election', to avoid the
> possibility
> >of last minute registrations, and to allow the members some time to know
> the
> >issues etc a bit.
> >
> >Then it says that "voter must personally ascertain that they are a member
> of
> >the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this
> >charter....." That elsewhere has just one criterion mentioned -
> subscription
> >to the charter'. Therefore I don't see any problem in directly
> ascertaining
> >if one subscribes to the charter, and therefore accepts membership,
> rather
> >than asking 'do you think you are a member as per the criterion mentioned
> >elsewhere in the charter'.
> >
> >That's essentially the difference between the process I have proposed and
> >what, Avri, you propose. I don't see why you are making so much out of
> it,
> >and hyping it with language like you don't want to be swearing an oath.
> >
> >'The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal
> decision
> >based on the criteria defined.' This may be the part which makes you
> think
> >that by the very act of voting one is a member, and adherence to the
> charter
> >is assumed. The meaning and intent of this line here is not very clear,
> but
> >I take its meaning more in the context of civil society identity of a
> >member, which is not a stated criterion of membership but a strongly
> implied
> >one (see the mention of 'CS' thrice in the mission statement). We know
> that
> >this can be controversial identity to judge and therefore the charter
> leaves
> >it to every person's self-identification, for the purpose of voting here.
> >
> >In any case if there were at all any real or perceived misalignment
> between
> >the membership part and the 'voting process' part I will take that the
> >'membership' part will hold greater authoritativeness.
> >
> >In any case, while I can see that a class of members can be non voters, I
> >cant see some voters being non-members. That looks quite illogical.
> >Therefore clearly all voters must have endorsed the charter. I am merely
> >asking them, have they considered this issue, and done so. I know many
> IGC
> >list participants may not want to subscribe to the charter identifying us
> an
> >a advocacy group committed to such and such, and I am merely giving them
> a
> >right to do so, and know that in that case, as per the group's charter,
> they
> >shouldn't vote.
> >
> >And this issue, in case of the IGC list, as we all know is a very real
> one.
> >There are many on this list who are here to look up for information, or
> even
> >to participate in a debate, but not as  a part of an advocacy group,
> >committed to collective action along certain lines, as constituted by the
> >charter. So, the numbers on the list is much larger than those who would
> >self-identify as charter endorsing members. We know that only  a small
> part
> >voted during the charter part (60 or so) and among them we still do not
> know
> >which were the ones  (all voters minus 3) who affirmed the charter.
> >
> >And we ourselves often identify this dual nature of IGC - as a discussion
> >forum, and as an advocacy group, and have developed some level of comfort
> >with this dual identity.
> >
> >I think not having a list of full members of the caucus who have endorsed
> >the charter is a very real issue, and we do not have this list at
> present. A
> >few members have publicly asked me for this list, most recently Adam, and
> I
> >have not replied, or replied in some embarrassment describing the current
> >situation.
> >
> >So, I request member's views on this issue of (1) how to prepare the
> voters
> >list for co-coordinator elections, and what process to follow (read the
> >enclosed email for the process proposed by me) and (2) whether we need or
> >don't need a list of members of IGF as defined by the charter.
> >
> >
> >At this point, since we are in the middle of a process, we are only
> seeking
> >these views 'as per the members' reading of the charter' which we need to
> >follow for IGC's organizational processes. Other more general views may
> be
> >offered, but with clear separation from the view 'as per reading of the
> >charter'. Thanks.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> >>  Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:50 PM
> >>  To: Governance Caucus
> >>  Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> >>
> >>
> >>  On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:35, Parminder wrote:
> >>
> >>  > If anyone has any comments, pl give provide them now. Thanks.
> >>
> >>  >>
> >>  >> "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.
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >>  i still prefer the  endorsement of the charter indicated by the act of
> >>  voting as described in the charter and don't plan to swear any
> >>  separate oaths myself.
> >>
> >>  i would see doing so as an explicit expression of not really
> >>  supporting the charter since i would be doing something contrary to
> >>  what the charter required.
> >>
> >>  if we had so desired we could have changed the charter.  we didn't.
> >>
> >>  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
> >
> >Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
> >	"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
> >	"'Kleinwächter, Wolfgang'"
> ><wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,
> >	"'Jeanette Hofmann'" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> >Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
> >Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:36:10 +0530
> >Message-ID: <20080415090621.103E0E23FC at smtp3.electricembers.net>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
> >	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0074_01C8A527.8F437710"
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on
> shire.symonds.net
> >X-Spam-Level:
> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=6.0
> >tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_HELO_PASS
> >autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.4
> >In-Reply-To:
> ><2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C26 at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> >Thread-Index: AcieVl3pAp6vmxFPRKGxKVCj7NJiSwAAFARgAAGFyXQAHcDI8A==
> >X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send
> >questions or false-positive reports to
> >help at electricembers.net
> >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> >X-Envelope-From: parminder at itforchange.net
> >X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >X-Sequence: 3524
> >X-no-archive: yes
> >List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
> >List-Subscribe:
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
> >List-Unsubscribe:
> ><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
> >X-Antiabuse: This header was added to track
> >abuse, please include it with any abuse report
> >
> >
> >
> >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>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>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>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>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>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>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists
> /info/governance
> >>
> >>
> >>  ____________________________________________________________
> >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  To be removed from the list, 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
> >>
> >>
> >>  ____________________________________________________________
> >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  To be removed from the list, 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
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, 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
> >
> >
> >Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
> >	"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
> >To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
> >	"'Adam Peake'" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> >Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
> >Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:35:15 +0530
> >Message-ID: <20080324110530.296D5E0451 at smtp3.electricembers.net>
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> >	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0070_01C8A527.8F437710"
> >X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
> >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
> >X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.4 (2006-07-26) on
> shire.symonds.net
> >X-Spam-Level:
> >X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=6.0
> >tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS
> >autolearn=ham version=3.1.4
> >In-Reply-To: <p06240800c40a4695b03d@[192.168.1.4]>
> >Thread-Index: AciMtllJ1GJb9JsTSvqmhKfARkynNAA5dmOQ
> >X-Original-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >X-ElectricEmbers-MailScanner-Information: Send
> >questions or false-positive reports to
> >help at electricembers.net
> >X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
> >X-Envelope-From: parminder at itforchange.net
> >X-Loop: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >X-Sequence: 3240
> >X-no-archive: yes
> >List-Help: <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=help>
> >List-Subscribe:
> <mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=subscribe%20governance>
> >List-Unsubscribe:
> ><mailto:sympa at lists.cpsr.org?subject=unsubscribe%20governance>
> >X-Antiabuse: This header was added to track
> >abuse, please include it with any abuse report
> >
> >
> >
> >  > Do we have a list of people who signed the charter?
> >>
> >>  Adam
> >
> >In fact, this is an issue which has been bothering me a bit, and is
> partly
> >responsible for the delay in co-coordinator elections. I want the group's
> >advice on this.
> >
> >The charter clearly defines the membership of the IGC as constituting
> those
> >who have endorsed its charter.
> >
> >We have a list of 58 people who voted during the charter vote. But among
> >these, 3 voted against. So, we do not have a list of those who voted for
> >
> >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.
> >
> >I would much prefer a prior endorsement of the charter, rather than an
> act
> >which is a (secondary) part of voting. But that is only my personal view.
> I
> >think endorsement of the charter should be a clear and positive step in
> >enrolling as a full member of the IGC.
> >
> >To All CS Rio attendees whom I wrote an email inviting them to join the
> IGC
> >(and many have) I clearly asked whether they also endorse the charter,
> and
> >many have. This is the only clear list of charter endorsees that I have.
> >
> >Members' views are solicited on this. Thanks.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  From: Adam Peake [<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >>  Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:49 PM
> >>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  Subject: RE: [governance] NOMCOM - MAG nominations
> >>
> >>  I volunteer if there are no objections.
> >>
> >>  A member of the MAG commenting on other
> >>  "incumbent" members might either be helpful or
> >>  might be an undue/unfair influence.  Not sure
> >>  which.  But worth discussing.
> >>
> >>  I understand that if selected I wouldn't be
> >>  eligible for the list being chosen. But should
> >>  that happen I would not withdraw my name from
> >>  consideration by the SG as either through
> >>  self-nomination or if recommended by some CS
> >>  group. I hope members of the appeals teams would
> >>  also not be subject to any restriction.
> >>
> >>  Do we have a list of people who signed the charter?
> >>
> >>  Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  >Hi All
> >>  >
> >>  >We are at number 18, and still need at least 7 more volunteers.
> >>  >
> >>  >Please also give your views on what should we do if we don¹t reach
> 25.
> >>  >
> >>  >(1)     Should we draw 5 members in any case
> >>  >from the pool available, say, by the end of
> >>  >Monday?
> >>  >(2)     Should we go for direct elections of MAG
> >  > >nominees (we have a voting software now, which
> >>  >has graciously been offered by Bigpulse, whose
> >>  >software I understand is being used by many
> >>  >other IG orgs. And groups)
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >Parminder
> >>  >
> >>  >The present list of volunteers is as follows.
> >>  >
> >>  >Milton Mueller
> >>  >Jeremy Malcolm
> >>  >Suresh Ramasubramanian
> >>  >Jeremy Shtern
> >>  >Robert Guerra
> >>  >Bret Faucett
> >>  >SCHOMBE Baudouin
> >>  >Carlos Afonso
> >>  >Ian Peter
> >>  >Lee W. McKnight
> >>  >Maja Anjelkovic
> >>  >Gurumurthy K
> >>  >Rudi Vansnick
> >>  >Karen Banks
> >>  >Michael Gurstein
> >>  >David Goldstein
> >>  >Philippe Dam
> >>  >Anita Gurumuthy
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >____________________________________________________________
> >>  >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  >To be removed from the list, 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
> >>
> >>  ____________________________________________________________
> >>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>  To be removed from the list, 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
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, 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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 23 03:25:53 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:25:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080423070444.53485F0021@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com>
References: <20080423070444.53485F0021@mhsmx11.bizmail.nifty.com>
Message-ID: <p06240805c4349285fc3b@[192.168.1.193]>

>  > If someone has been subscribed to the list for
>>  two months they should be sent an email asking
>>  them if they wish to become a member of the
>>  caucus and if they subscribe to the IGC charter
>>  (which means they have read the charter
>  > <http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html >
>>  and accept the provisions of the charter.)  If
>>  they answer yes, they are members and can be
>>  added to a member list.
>>
>
>That’s exactly what is proposed by me to be done.


Thanks :-)


>I mean to send an email to
>all those who have been on this list for two months. Almost all those who
>joined after that joined in response to my specific invite, and in that the
>charter endorsement thing is mentioned. Many have explicitly said they
>endorse the charter, and I have that list.
>
>>  I expect whoever is the list admin should be able to see a subscription
>>  date.
>
>Avri has shared such  a list with me.



I suggest we postpone the start of the election 
process for new coordinators until after the next 
IGF consultation, focus on that for the time 
being and election after.  If we started the 
process so it begins 2 months after folks 
responded to your email of March 17 then they 
could also take part, rather miss out by a few 
weeks.

Thanks,

Adam




>Parminder
>

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

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


From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Wed Apr 23 04:14:59 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:14:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <EBEDCD51-7BF1-4686-B290-0B7601D6E45B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <C434BCA3.1116C%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Meryem,

Thanks for more directly stating and elaborating on my questions, I guess
there was no need for subtlety.  Again, we all appreciate the effort that
was made and I'm not seeking to initiate a round of post hoc criticism of
the way the process was managed, but I do agree with you that the way we did
it in 2006 was better, more transparent.   I've not saved the messages and
don't feel like digging through the archives, but I seem to recall that a
number of the candidates expressed interest on the list, and as you say all
candidates with endorsements and bios went up at
http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml before the nomcom began, so
everyone knew what was what from the outset.

In contrast, this year, nominations were sent privately to the chair, and no
information was returned to the list on the number or identities of
candidates. Weeks of silence ensued, and I recall worrying in a post that
the deadline for submissions was approaching and we didn't seem to have many
candidates since only a few incumbents--Adam, Jeanette, Qusai I
believe----had said on the list they wanted to be considered.  But as we
were informed some time later, after the process was well underway, there
were in fact 33 candidates.  And now that selections have been made, we
still don't have information about them.  Hopefully in lieu of having
provided info along the way, the nomcom will include in its pending report
full info on each step so that next time around and into the future (however
long that may be---btw the caucus' fifth anniversary went by without
comment) there will be a proper record that can be consulted.

I don't know why the approach used previously wasn't followed in this
instance, but would suggest that it be followed in the future. Caucus
processes should not be run like Papal conclaves.

Best,

Bill

On 4/22/08 4:37 PM, "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:

> 
> Le 22 avr. 08 à 16:16, William Drake a écrit :
> 
>> Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last
>> time, when
>> info on the nominees and process was posted?
>> http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
>> In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
>> pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
>> everyone who's been nominated...
> 
> Yes, we did, and we had this information before the nomcom started
> its work last time:
> http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml
> This page shows the list of nominees the previous NomCom has
> considered, with their bios, their statement of intent, their
> endorsements, etc. The http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-
> IGF-MAG.html page only shows the nominees selected by former IGC nomcom.
> 
> I think it matters a lot, actually, in terms of IGC internal
> transparency and accountability. And since the current nomcom rightly
> asked, in its call for nominations and among other requirements, for:
> 
> "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.",
> 
> I would be interested, as an IGC member, in reading such brief
> reports from concerned nominees, especially since I see from the
> nomcom results that some of them have been selected again. These
> information will certainly be provided in the nomcom report, although
> concerned nomineeds would have shown some consideration to the IGC by
> posting these information to the list.
> 
> 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

***********************************************************
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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed Apr 23 06:08:58 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:08:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <BCFCB3FE-A729-4E32-8542-7E486F375BEC@psg.com>
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <BCFCB3FE-A729-4E32-8542-7E486F375BEC@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080423100919.EA3593F5179@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi avri

At 17:06 22/04/2008, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>i will post on http://www.igcaucus.org/ whatever the nomcom gives me
>to post.

can you put a link through to the 2006 nomcom work..?

http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml

thanks

karen

>a.
>
>On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:16, William Drake wrote:
>>I echo Milton's thanks to the group, skepticism on the prospects (once
>>bitten, twice shy), and commitment in the event of a surprise.
>>
>>Not that it matters much, but will we be doing the same as last
>>time, when
>>info on the nominees and process was posted?
>>http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html
>>In fact, didn't we also post info on the candidates and endorsements
>>pre-nomcom?  I don't remember anymore...Anyway, I at least don't know
>>everyone who's been nominated...
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>On 4/22/08 3:39 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Very fast work, thanks to the Nomcom volunteers and to Robt. for
>>>running
>>>it so smoothly! And, in the slim chance that I break into the charmed
>>>circle of MAG, the caucus's confidence in me will not be misplaced.
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20080423/7590ef00/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 23 06:29:54 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:29:54 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <C434BCA3.1116C%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C434BCA3.1116C%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <p0624080cc434b1c85002@[192.168.1.193]>

>Hi Meryem,
>

<snip>

>we didn't seem to have many
>candidates since only a few incumbents--Adam, Jeanette, Qusai I
>believe----had said on the list they wanted to be considered.



Nothing prevented you or anyone else from saying you intended to be a 
candidate.

Because people (other than most of the incumbent MAG members) didn't 
announce their candidacy there wasn't an opportunity for support and 
endorsements.  We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of 
qualities we thought the nomcom should look for. Other than the MAG 
members who made their candidacy known, it wasn't clear when we were 
discussing rules/criteria/strategies for the selection process who 
had a vested interest and who didn't. A shame when we seem so 
concerned about transparency.

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  Wed Apr 23 06:46:24 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:46:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <p0624080cc434b1c85002@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <C434E020.1118D%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Adam,

On 4/23/08 12:29 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

>> Hi Meryem,
>> 
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> we didn't seem to have many
>> candidates since only a few incumbents--Adam, Jeanette, Qusai I
>> believe----had said on the list they wanted to be considered.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing prevented you or anyone else from saying you intended to be a
> candidate.

The process that was announced called for people to send nominations
directly to the chair rather than to the list, so that's what people doing
the nominating did.  I don't think it's surprising that the other 30
nominees all thought, well, whatever, that's the process this time, and
nobody else is saying anything...
 
> Because people (other than most of the incumbent MAG members) didn't
> announce their candidacy there wasn't an opportunity for support and
> endorsements.  We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of
> qualities we thought the nomcom should look for. Other than the MAG

Actually we discussed that at some length prior to the constitution of the
nomcom.  You were part of the discussion, I have several saved messages from
you here, mid-March.

> members who made their candidacy known, it wasn't clear when we were
> discussing rules/criteria/strategies for the selection process who
> had a vested interest and who didn't. A shame when we seem so
> concerned about transparency.

Sorry, I'm missing your point.  We discussed criteria and there was a list
of items that then got folded into the call for nominees.  What vested
interests are you talking about with respect to that?

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 iza at anr.org  Wed Apr 23 06:47:35 2008
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:47:35 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
	 <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
	 <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
	 <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
Message-ID: <a5509d940804230347v1c8436a9nf443acc063373d5e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
Thank you so much for the hard work of NomCom, especially to Robert.
I also respond to the Merylm's call, and here attached is my SOI to
nomcom including brief bio.

I am also not optimistic about the possible selection to MAG, but
if so happened will do my best to act for the best interest of IGC.

best,

izumi


2008/4/23, vcretu at cmb.md <vcretu at cmb.md>:
> Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about Europe
>  we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
>  Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from these
>  parts of the world?!
>
>  regards from Moldova,
>  Veronica Cretu
>
>
>
>
>
>  > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still does
>  > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to all
>  > others.
>  >
>  > frt rgds
>  >
>  > --c.a.
>  >
>  > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>  >> Hi Carlos,
>  >>
>  >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much. Since it
>  >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share on the
>  >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected. More
>  >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more choice. It
>  >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
>  >> jeanette
>  >>
>  >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>  >>> Hi people,
>  >>>
>  >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only two
>  >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean), while
>  >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
>  >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I do not
>  >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance, to
>  >>> put it diplomatically.
>  >>>
>  >>> fraternal regards
>  >>>
>  >>> --c.a.
>  >>>
>  >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
>  >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
>  >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
>  >>>> followed by
>  >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation
>  >>>> for
>  >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio
>  >>>> profiles
>  >>>> for the candidates.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below
>  >>>> please
>  >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two
>  >>>> things -
>  >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
>  >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will
>  >>>> be
>  >>>> included in the final report.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration
>  >>>> and the
>  >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> regards
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Robert Guerra
>  >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> -----
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Statistics:
>  >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC
>  >>>> (2),
>  >>>> North America (3)
>  >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Africa
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Natasha Primo
>  >>>> Dawit Bekele
>  >>>> Ken Lohento
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Asia
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Adam Peake
>  >>>> Izumi Aizu
>  >>>> Y. J. Park
>  >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Europe
>  >>>>
>  >>>> William Drake
>  >>>> Vittorio Bertola
>  >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> LAC
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Valeria Betancourt
>  >>>> Graciela Selaimen
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> North America
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Robin Gross
>  >>>> Milton Mueller
>  >>>> Michael Gurstein
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> ____________________________________________________________
>  >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >>>>
>  >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>  >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>
>  >>> ____________________________________________________________
>  >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >>>
>  >>> For all list information and functions, see:
>  >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  >> ____________________________________________________________
>  >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >>
>  >> For all list information and functions, see:
>  >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > ____________________________________________________________
>  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >
>  > For all list information and functions, see:
>  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>  >
>
>
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>  For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
           Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr 23 07:38:44 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:08:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <C434E020.1118D%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080423113855.A4BFA6784B@smtp1.electricembers.net>



Bill, Meryem and Adam

Thanks for your engagement with the nomcom process. It is good to have these
open discussions. 

A couple of clarifications, as per what I know. 

First is the issue of developing criteria for nomination. I gave repeated
calls, even set aside days, for the caucus to discuss these criteria, and
requested the nomcom both to listen to the conversation and pick up the
sense of the caucus, and ask specific questions if found necessary. Though
such a discussion regarding a few issues did take place a little earlier on
the list, in this period no one came back to mention or reiterate her/his
views on criteria for selection. 

So I really do not know what you mean Adam when you say

>We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of qualities we thought the
>nomcom should look for. 

However still the nomcom was specifically requested to pick the sense of the
caucus on this issue, and wherever information/ clarification was sought
from co-coordinators they let their view of the discussions on the list
known.  

We expect a detailed report from the nomcom which will address all issues
raised here. 

> The process that was announced called for people to send nominations
> directly to the chair rather than to the list, so that's what people doing
> the nominating did.  I don't think it's surprising that the other 30
> nominees all thought, well, whatever, that's the process this time, and
> nobody else is saying anything...

As far as I know, last time around too the nominations were requested to be
sent to a specific id IGC-nomcom at wsis-cs.org and not to the list. Sending it
to the list is something optional left to the nominating person. When you
say 'nobody else is saying anything', that includes you. When I said 30 plus
nominations have been received in response to your posting that only one or
so is received, you should have mentioned that you think it to be a very non
transparent process, since I see you have particular strong position on
this. It is our collective responsibility to contribute to the process when
we see something can be changed/ improved.


As about other things, as also these above ones I commented on, I am sure
nomcom may have more to say on this issue.  

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:16 PM
> To: Peake, Adam; Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> Hi Adam,
> 
> On 4/23/08 12:29 PM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> >> Hi Meryem,
> >>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> we didn't seem to have many
> >> candidates since only a few incumbents--Adam, Jeanette, Qusai I
> >> believe----had said on the list they wanted to be considered.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nothing prevented you or anyone else from saying you intended to be a
> > candidate.
> 
> The process that was announced called for people to send nominations
> directly to the chair rather than to the list, so that's what people doing
> the nominating did.  I don't think it's surprising that the other 30
> nominees all thought, well, whatever, that's the process this time, and
> nobody else is saying anything...
> 
> > Because people (other than most of the incumbent MAG members) didn't
> > announce their candidacy there wasn't an opportunity for support and
> > endorsements.  We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of
> > qualities we thought the nomcom should look for. Other than the MAG
> 
> Actually we discussed that at some length prior to the constitution of the
> nomcom.  You were part of the discussion, I have several saved messages
> from
> you here, mid-March.
> 
> > members who made their candidacy known, it wasn't clear when we were
> > discussing rules/criteria/strategies for the selection process who
> > had a vested interest and who didn't. A shame when we seem so
> > concerned about transparency.
> 
> Sorry, I'm missing your point.  We discussed criteria and there was a list
> of items that then got folded into the call for nominees.  What vested
> interests are you talking about with respect to that?
> 
> 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 ca at rits.org.br  Wed Apr 23 07:45:51 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:45:51 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
Message-ID: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>

Dear people,

It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
regarding our region.

frt rgds

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: vcretu at cmb.md
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates

> Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
> Europe
> we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
> Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
> these
> parts of the world?!
> 
> regards from Moldova,
> Veronica Cretu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still
> does
> > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
> all
> > others.
> >
> > frt rgds
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >> Hi Carlos,
> >>
> >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
> Since it
> >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
> on the
> >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
> More
> >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
> choice. It
> >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> >> jeanette
> >>
> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >>> Hi people,
> >>>
> >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
> two
> >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
> while
> >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
> >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
> do not
> >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
> to
> >>> put it diplomatically.
> >>>
> >>> fraternal regards
> >>>
> >>> --c.a.
> >>>
> >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
> of
> >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> >>>>
> >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
> >>>> followed by
> >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
> recommendation
> >>>> for
> >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
> bio
> >>>> profiles
> >>>> for the candidates.
> >>>>
> >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
> below
> >>>> please
> >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
> two
> >>>> things -
> >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
> committing to
> >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation
> will
> >>>> be
> >>>> included in the final report.
> >>>>
> >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
> consideration
> >>>> and the
> >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> >>>>
> >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
> done...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Robert Guerra
> >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
> >>>>
> >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> >>>>
> >>>> Statistics:
> >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
> (3), LAC
> >>>> (2),
> >>>> North America (3)
> >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> >>>>
> >>>> Africa
> >>>>
> >>>> Natasha Primo
> >>>> Dawit Bekele
> >>>> Ken Lohento
> >>>>
> >>>> Asia
> >>>>
> >>>> Adam Peake
> >>>> Izumi Aizu
> >>>> Y. J. Park
> >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
> >>>>
> >>>> Europe
> >>>>
> >>>> William Drake
> >>>> Vittorio Bertola
> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> LAC
> >>>>
> >>>> Valeria Betancourt
> >>>> Graciela Selaimen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> North America
> >>>>
> >>>> Robin Gross
> >>>> Milton Mueller
> >>>> Michael Gurstein
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>
> >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 23 07:52:21 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:52:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <20080423113855.A4BFA6784B@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080423113855.A4BFA6784B@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p06240815c434d2e21200@[192.168.1.193]>

>Bill, Meryem and Adam
>
>Thanks for your engagement with the nomcom process. It is good to have these
>open discussions.
>
>A couple of clarifications, as per what I know.
>
>First is the issue of developing criteria for nomination. I gave repeated
>calls, even set aside days, for the caucus to discuss these criteria, and
>requested the nomcom both to listen to the conversation and pick up the
>sense of the caucus, and ask specific questions if found necessary. Though
>such a discussion regarding a few issues did take place a little earlier on
>the list, in this period no one came back to mention or reiterate her/his
>views on criteria for selection.
>
>So I really do not know what you mean Adam when you say
>
>>We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of qualities we thought the
>>nomcom should look for.


I meant that it wasn't clear there was any 
conclusion to our meandering discussions and any 
instruction given to the nomcom.  But what your 
write below clarifies somewhat, thanks for that.

Adam



>However still the nomcom was specifically requested to pick the sense of the
>caucus on this issue, and wherever information/ clarification was sought
>from co-coordinators they let their view of the discussions on the list
>known. 
>
>We expect a detailed report from the nomcom which will address all issues
>raised 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 babatope at gmail.com  Wed Apr 23 07:53:59 2008
From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:53:59 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
	 <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
	 <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
	 <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
	 <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <cea89bdf0804230453r71b9cd5jf619692c2a790bba@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,
Congratulations to everyone of the nominees and we look forward to receiving
the NomCom report. Meanwhile, I think it's also clear a review of current
selection process/procedure is needed based on comments/concerns made so
far.

I think this is not an indictment on anyone in particular but rather a
sincere call to ensure representation and diversity without leaving any
group behind.

Again, to the nominees, i say Congrats....(especially to the African team)

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:45 PM, carlos a. afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:

> Dear people,
>
> It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
> voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
> regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
> NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
> names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
> makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
> regarding our region.
>
> frt rgds
>
> --c.a.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vcretu at cmb.md
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
> lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
>
> > Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
> > Europe
> > we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
> > Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
> > these
> > parts of the world?!
> >
> > regards from Moldova,
> > Veronica Cretu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still
> > does
> > > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
> > all
> > > others.
> > >
> > > frt rgds
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
> > Since it
> > >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
> > on the
> > >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
> > More
> > >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
> > choice. It
> > >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> > >> jeanette
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > >>> Hi people,
> > >>>
> > >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
> > two
> > >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
> > while
> > >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
> > >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
> > do not
> > >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
> > to
> > >>> put it diplomatically.
> > >>>
> > >>> fraternal regards
> > >>>
> > >>> --c.a.
> > >>>
> > >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> > >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
> > of
> > >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
> > >>>> followed by
> > >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
> > recommendation
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
> > bio
> > >>>> profiles
> > >>>> for the candidates.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
> > below
> > >>>> please
> > >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
> > two
> > >>>> things -
> > >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
> > committing to
> > >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation
> > will
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> included in the final report.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
> > consideration
> > >>>> and the
> > >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
> > done...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robert Guerra
> > >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Statistics:
> > >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
> > (3), LAC
> > >>>> (2),
> > >>>> North America (3)
> > >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Africa
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Natasha Primo
> > >>>> Dawit Bekele
> > >>>> Ken Lohento
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Asia
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adam Peake
> > >>>> Izumi Aizu
> > >>>> Y. J. Park
> > >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Europe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> William Drake
> > >>>> Vittorio Bertola
> > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LAC
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Valeria Betancourt
> > >>>> Graciela Selaimen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> North America
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robin Gross
> > >>>> Milton Mueller
> > >>>> Michael Gurstein
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>
> > >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
'Tope Soremi

Nigerian Youth ICT4D Network (www.nyinetwork.org) |
Foundation Nigerianet (www.nigerianet.org) |
Paradigm Initiative Nigeria (www.pin.org.ng) |
Nigeria Anti-Scam network
(www.cybercrime.org.ng, www.treasure.org.ng) |

Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007

You can't give what you don't have........
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/fa50f5e2/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 23 07:58:21 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:58:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <20080423100919.EA3593F5179@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <BCFCB3FE-A729-4E32-8542-7E486F375BEC@psg.com> <20080423100919.EA3593F5179@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <5F8752A3-7637-4494-B757-2B94F6E038CD@psg.com>


On 23 Apr 2008, at 06:08, karen banks wrote:
>
> can you put a link through to the 2006 nomcom work..?
>
> http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml


done.  i added it to the bottom of the page.

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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Wed Apr 23 08:00:43 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:00:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
 <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>
 <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
 <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
 <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
 <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <20080423120111.9CCB33F5CFD@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi

>It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
>voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
>regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
>NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
>names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
>makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
>regarding our region.

i have to admit that this wasn't immediately obvious to me when i 
first looked over the slate - i think in my mind also, i knew that 
one of the african candidates (who apc proposed ) may have to stand 
down - and therefore there would only be 2 african candidates..

but now that ca has pointed out the anomaly so clearly, i do have to 
support his question

when does the nomcom submit the names to the IGF secretariat?

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/c9e6b514/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  Wed Apr 23 08:02:00 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:02:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <5F8752A3-7637-4494-B757-2B94F6E038CD@psg.com>
References: <C433BFEC.11118%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <BCFCB3FE-A729-4E32-8542-7E486F375BEC@psg.com>
 <20080423100919.EA3593F5179@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <5F8752A3-7637-4494-B757-2B94F6E038CD@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080423120227.C76613F5D26@mail.gn.apc.org>

thanks avri

karen

At 12:58 23/04/2008, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 23 Apr 2008, at 06:08, karen banks wrote:
>>
>>can you put a link through to the 2006 nomcom work..?
>>
>>http://www.wsis-cs.org/igfnominees.shtml
>
>
>done.  i added it to the bottom of the page.
>
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/58986746/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 23 08:08:35 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:08:35 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080423042118.BBE9DA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080423042118.BBE9DA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <248ABADE-82D3-4940-AF50-DA12D4062D99@psg.com>

Hi,

As you know i strongly disagreed with your interpretation when you  
first spoke to me of it a while back.    But you are right, it could  
be seen as a matter of interpretation.  I don't accept your  
interpretation and have stated what i will do, or rather what I will  
not do.

If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,  
especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very  
little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in this  
case.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr 23 08:30:24 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:00:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <248ABADE-82D3-4940-AF50-DA12D4062D99@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080423123033.ED2CCA6C54@smtp2.electricembers.net>


> 
> Hi,
> 
> As you know i strongly disagreed with your interpretation when you
> first spoke to me of it a while back.    But you are right, it could
> be seen as a matter of interpretation.  I don't accept your
> interpretation and have stated what i will do, or rather what I will
> not do.
> 
> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in this
> case.
> 
> a.

Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a simple and
relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are trying to sort
out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it. 

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


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

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


From iza at anr.org  Wed Apr 23 09:41:27 2008
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:41:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080423123033.ED2CCA6C54@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <248ABADE-82D3-4940-AF50-DA12D4062D99@psg.com>
	 <20080423123033.ED2CCA6C54@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry, I could not understand what was the real issue having read several
posts only once. And I don't have too much time to read them twice.

Could someone explain in a simple and cons ice message what is the
real issue?

Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
charter and then given the voting right? Or do you request all members
do so again even they did before? Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting right, but
by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the charter?
(To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).

Sorry for my ignorance.

izumi

2008/4/23, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > As you know i strongly disagreed with your interpretation when you
>  > first spoke to me of it a while back.    But you are right, it could
>  > be seen as a matter of interpretation.  I don't accept your
>  > interpretation and have stated what i will do, or rather what I will
>  > not do.
>  >
>  > If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
>  > especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
>  > little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in this
>  > case.
>  >
>  > a.
>
>
> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a simple and
>  relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are trying to sort
>  out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
>
>
>  Parminder
>
> >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ____________________________________________________________
>  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>  >
>  > For all list information and functions, see:
>  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>  For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
           Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 23 09:44:10 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:44:10 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
Message-ID: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

I don't see any need, nor any sound reason, to criticize the nomcom -  
i.e. its members - in this process.

It has been set up in a hurry, with countless messages from Parminder  
desperately asking for volunteers. It was even difficult to find a  
non voting nomcom chair. And my opinion is that the nomcom did a  
great job, especially under such conditions, to come up with a call  
for nominees perfectly synthetizing the requirements, following the  
long and - as usual - heated discussion we had on this list prior to  
nomcom work.

True the nomcom might have made clear that (self-)nominations should  
also be sent to the IGC. But, after all, no one from this list  
reacted on the call for nominees, saying that nominations should be  
sent to the list. In such conditions, I understand that, most  
probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations (with  
names and private details), when nomineeds were not informed on such  
possibility in advance.

Since we don't have yet the nomcom report, I also hardly understand  
critics on why people from one region or the other have not been  
selected, or in less number than others, when we don't know the  
details on the received nominations (only general statistics have  
been published).

As regards nominees, we certainly can't expect from people external  
to IGC to send their (self-)nominations to this list, when they  
haven't been asked so. However, we could have expected to be informed  
on (self-)nominations from people active in the IGC, most notably  
from incumbents, most notably from those incumbents who announced  
their willingness to be selected again. Apparently, they don't have  
anything to report to us on their activity in the MAG till now. I  
regret this.

Furthermore, the nomcom has selected 15 nominees. It has been said  
that this would give more choice to the selection by UN/Secretariat.  
I'm wondering:

(1) if it's wise to give choice to UN/Secretariat - why then  
undertaking this selection process?
(2) how many candidates from IGC nominated group we expect to be  
selected?
(3) how many CS people we expect to be selected, all in all.

You might have understood at this point that our criticisms should  
target now is not the nomcom, but:
- our own choice of selecting our candidates through a nomcom process  
rather than a voting process
- our own choice - be it by default - to let the UN/Secretariat pick  
up who it wants to pick up, rather than having a clear idea in  
advance on how many candidates we should select, then  select them,  
and send this list to UN/Secretariat with clear demand that they  
should be on the MAG.

We should be now busy with workshop proposals, statement for May  
consultations, and other related issues. But right after this, we  
should start considering at least changing our charter w.r.t. to  
selection process, and vote on this changes according to our current  
charter provisions.

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 ginger at paque.net  Wed Apr 23 07:56:05 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:26:05 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
References: <20080423113855.A4BFA6784B@smtp1.electricembers.net> <p06240815c434d2e21200@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <014f01c8a539$05370570$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

As a new subscriber's viewpoint, I think that the discussion possibilities were clear from the beginning, and the process was carried out well. tx. gp
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Peake 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:22 AM
  Subject: RE: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates


  >Bill, Meryem and Adam
  >
  >Thanks for your engagement with the nomcom process. It is good to have these
  >open discussions.
  >
  >A couple of clarifications, as per what I know.
  >
  >First is the issue of developing criteria for nomination. I gave repeated
  >calls, even set aside days, for the caucus to discuss these criteria, and
  >requested the nomcom both to listen to the conversation and pick up the
  >sense of the caucus, and ask specific questions if found necessary. Though
  >such a discussion regarding a few issues did take place a little earlier on
  >the list, in this period no one came back to mention or reiterate her/his
  >views on criteria for selection.
  >
  >So I really do not know what you mean Adam when you say
  >
  >>We didn't even have chance to discuss the kind of qualities we thought the
  >>nomcom should look for.


  I meant that it wasn't clear there was any 
  conclusion to our meandering discussions and any 
  instruction given to the nomcom.  But what your 
  write below clarifies somewhat, thanks for that.

  Adam



  >However still the nomcom was specifically requested to pick the sense of the
  >caucus on this issue, and wherever information/ clarification was sought
  >from co-coordinators they let their view of the discussions on the list
  >known. 
  >
  >We expect a detailed report from the nomcom which will address all issues
  >raised 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/8a9b8476/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 ginger at paque.net  Wed Apr 23 07:52:17 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 07:22:17 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com> <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <014701c8a538$7de88080$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

I would like to second Carlos Alfonso's concern here, especially as the slate of LAC candidates was particularly well-qualified.

Thanks.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: carlos a. afonso 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; vcretu at cmb.md 
  Cc: Jeanette Hofmann ; lists at privaterra.info ; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:15 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates


  Dear people,

  It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
  voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
  regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
  NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
  names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
  makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
  regarding our region.

  frt rgds

  --c.a.

  -----Original Message-----
  From: vcretu at cmb.md
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
  Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
  lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
  Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates

  > Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
  > Europe
  > we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
  > Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
  > these
  > parts of the world?!
  > 
  > regards from Moldova,
  > Veronica Cretu
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still
  > does
  > > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
  > all
  > > others.
  > >
  > > frt rgds
  > >
  > > --c.a.
  > >
  > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
  > >> Hi Carlos,
  > >>
  > >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
  > Since it
  > >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
  > on the
  > >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
  > More
  > >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
  > choice. It
  > >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
  > >> jeanette
  > >>
  > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
  > >>> Hi people,
  > >>>
  > >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
  > two
  > >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
  > while
  > >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
  > >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
  > do not
  > >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
  > to
  > >>> put it diplomatically.
  > >>>
  > >>> fraternal regards
  > >>>
  > >>> --c.a.
  > >>>
  > >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
  > >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
  > of
  > >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
  > >>>> followed by
  > >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
  > recommendation
  > >>>> for
  > >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
  > bio
  > >>>> profiles
  > >>>> for the candidates.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
  > below
  > >>>> please
  > >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
  > two
  > >>>> things -
  > >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
  > committing to
  > >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation
  > will
  > >>>> be
  > >>>> included in the final report.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
  > consideration
  > >>>> and the
  > >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
  > >>>>
  > >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
  > done...
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> regards
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Robert Guerra
  > >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> -----
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Statistics:
  > >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
  > (3), LAC
  > >>>> (2),
  > >>>> North America (3)
  > >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Africa
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Natasha Primo
  > >>>> Dawit Bekele
  > >>>> Ken Lohento
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Asia
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Adam Peake
  > >>>> Izumi Aizu
  > >>>> Y. J. Park
  > >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Europe
  > >>>>
  > >>>> William Drake
  > >>>> Vittorio Bertola
  > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> LAC
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Valeria Betancourt
  > >>>> Graciela Selaimen
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> North America
  > >>>>
  > >>>> Robin Gross
  > >>>> Milton Mueller
  > >>>> Michael Gurstein
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
  > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  > >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  > >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > >>>>
  > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
  > >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  > >>>>
  > >>>>
  > >>>
  > >>> ____________________________________________________________
  > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > >>>
  > >>> For all list information and functions, see:
  > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  > >> ____________________________________________________________
  > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > >>
  > >> For all list information and functions, see:
  > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  > >>
  > >>
  > >
  > > ____________________________________________________________
  > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > >
  > > For all list information and functions, see:
  > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  > >
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ____________________________________________________________
  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  > 
  > For all list information and functions, see:
  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, 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/20080423/0e6a5e76/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  Wed Apr 23 10:12:40 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:42:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080423141251.9C85267854@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Izumi

Izumi

No intention to make things complicated but I understand your dilemma. But I
have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether we have
a list of subscribed members.

> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
> charter and then given the voting right?

All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of those
who have subscribed.

>Or do you request all members
> do so again even they did before?

Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There was a
vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67 (including votes
rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of those who
voted 'for' the charter.  

Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting right,
> but
> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the charter?
> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).

That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one gets
treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who do not
vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co-coordinator issue.
They become/ remain non-members? 

This way we still wont have a members list

Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read and
subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And on that
basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2 month on
the list criteria added).

Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if you vote,
it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to it.. A lot
round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of membership per
the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant understand
what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I suggested. 

And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And remember even
last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in the
charter process. People often make that choice. And members have asked for
that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.

Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I need to
conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever veers
towards a consensus position here. 

Parminder 






> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
> AIZU
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:11 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Cc: Avri Doria
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> Sorry, I could not understand what was the real issue having read several
> posts only once. And I don't have too much time to read them twice.
> 
> Could someone explain in a simple and cons ice message what is the
> real issue?
> 
> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
> charter and then given the voting right? Or do you request all members
> do so again even they did before? Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting right,
> but
> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the charter?
> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).
> 
> Sorry for my ignorance.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 2008/4/23, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> >
> >  >
> >  > Hi,
> >  >
> >  > As you know i strongly disagreed with your interpretation when you
> >  > first spoke to me of it a while back.    But you are right, it could
> >  > be seen as a matter of interpretation.  I don't accept your
> >  > interpretation and have stated what i will do, or rather what I will
> >  > not do.
> >  >
> >  > If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
> >  > especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
> >  > little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in
> this
> >  > case.
> >  >
> >  > a.
> >
> >
> > Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a simple
> and
> >  relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are trying to
> sort
> >  out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
> >
> >
> >  Parminder
> >
> > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > ____________________________________________________________
> >  > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >  >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >  > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >  >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >  >
> >  > For all list information and functions, see:
> >  >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> >  ____________________________________________________________
> >  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >  For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
>                         >> Izumi Aizu <<
> 
>            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
>            Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
>                                   Japan
>                                  * * * * *
>            << Writing the Future of the History >>
>                                 www.anr.org
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 23 10:42:53 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:42:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080423141251.9C85267854@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080423141251.9C85267854@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <A22F44FE-C674-4C5F-9468-73594C05F90D@ras.eu.org>

Parminder,

As far I understand, you're looking for opinions on the process here.  
Mine is not a strong one, I can live with both options. However:

Le 23 avr. 08 à 16:12, Parminder a écrit :

> Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There  
> was a
> vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67  
> (including votes
> rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of  
> those who
> voted 'for' the charter.

considering this, and in order to avoid any dispute after the  
coordinator elections process, I think we should go for the safest  
option, i.e. re-subscribing to the charter. After all, it's neither  
that cumbersome, nor a denial of our current membership for those who  
are members. I see it mainly as a housekeeping issue.

Although.. I don't want to raise additional process issues, but I'm  
wondering how I could resubscribe to the charter - i.e. reaffirm that  
I'm an IGC member - and only one or two months later ask for changing  
its provisions on nomcom process:))

But anyway.. let's be flexible, we have other important issues to  
deal with.

BTW, we probably could use the reminder option of the mailing list  
system to periodically ask subscribers to re-confirm membership.

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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Apr 23 05:04:30 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:04:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080422162208.8954A6784F@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <C432C304.110C4%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
	 <20080422162208.8954A6784F@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804230204s6033d422j8c2373231b24ae97@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, Parminder,

I will be online everyday in Campus Numérique Francophone de Kinshasa.

Baudouin

2008/4/22 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

>  Bill, Thanks for the clarifications.
>
>
>
> We urgently need someone to take this work up. Adam, you had shown some
> interest in making this a mid-term review of the IGF. Or you Vittorio, you
> can bring some continuity for the last years group. Lee? Willie?. Anyone
> else.
>
>
>
> We already have three members – Karen, Baudouin and Jeremy - ready to be
> in the WG. Need a convener. I assure anyone who takes this job up that it
> will quite fulfilling J, and not too taxing, as Bill explained.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:48 AM
> *To:* Governance
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>
>
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> On the role and mandate workshop:  Having done it last year, I don't think
> it's right for me to do it again, and anyway I'm in the jurisdiction group.
>  My suggestion would be that we get new blood involved, people who've been
> active in the caucus, have thought a lot about this, but can broker between
> different tendencies etc.   Some obvious convener candidates like Willie,
> Lee, others, come to mind if they'd be interested...
>
> It may be that part of what's holding people back is the prospect of a
> complicated and time consuming process, but in reality, this really
> shouldn't be too hard.  It's not necessary to renegotiate the ws description
> from scratch and totally rethink the co-sponsors and speakers in the next
> nine days.  Last year's event went well and everyone seemed to come away
> fairly happy (including some parties that fretted about it in advance), so
> we seemingly established a certain level of trust and understanding that the
> event is useful and won't blow up the joint.  I assume the MAG would expect
> to see a proposal for a v.2 from us (or more to the point, would be rather
> surprised not to), and that we shouldn't have to re-convince them too
> elaborately as long as we cross the T's and dot the I's in terms of being MS
> with diverse views etc.  So why not resubmit largely the same text and reach
> out to the more or less the same kinds of co-sponsors and non-CS speakers we
> had last year (ICC/Ayesha, ISOC/Bill, developing country/India, developed
> country/EC, etc), come up with three new IGC speakers with varying shades of
> positions, submit whatever we have by April 30, and then add later as
> needed.
>
> BTW, for reference, the report on last year's version of the ws is now at
> http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 4/21/08 4:57 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
>
> 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
> Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
> Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
> convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill and
> Vittorio from the last year's group (Karen has said no to convening, and I
> do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours, will
> one of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the last
> year's group will be good.
>
> 2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction
>
> The WG is working
>
> 3. 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'
>
> IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if
> anyone from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions.
>
> 4. Rights based approach the Internet – Implications for IG
>
> A draft is being developed.
>
> As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
> proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground to
> propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th – 29th.
>
> Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these proposals,
> it will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and the
> appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right away.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parminder
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]<parminder at itforchange.net%5d>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGC workshops
>
> Hi All
>
> This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>
>
>    1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
> The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam
> and others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF
> at the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
> build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
> did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
> make this a regular IGF feature.
>
> Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop
> proposals (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given
> says; "Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the
> mandate of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this
> is an important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year,
> that it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops.
>
>
>    1. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
>
> A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
>
>
>    1. Internationalization
>
>
> As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
> workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
> Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
> IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
> (and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.
>
>
>    1. A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
>
>
> Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will
> soon be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to
> join this WG is welcome.
>
> If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them
> in the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need
> to be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
> fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions.
>
>
>    1. *Name of proposed workshop*
>    2. *Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.*
>    3. *Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
>    have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
>    workshop.*
>    4. *Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
>    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
>    to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
>    gender balance.*
>    5. *Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
>    issues under discussion?*
>    6. *Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
>    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
>    Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.*
>    7. *List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
>    organized in the past.*
>    8. *Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
>    you submit a workshop report?*
>    9. *9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>    under ?*
>
>
> The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
> provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See* **
> http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm> .
> F*or answering question 9,* *please see the list of topics mentioned on
> this link, though workshops outside these topics can also be proposed.
> *
> *
> Thanks. Parminder
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/023923cd/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  Wed Apr 23 12:54:10 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:54:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] Invitation: CoE/UNECE/APC Stakeholder Consultation,
 23 May 2008
Message-ID: <20080423165426.A050F3F7CA6@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all,

Please find below an announcement about a 
workshop co-hosted by the Council of Europe, the 
UNECE and APC - on public participation in 
internet governance - to be held during the WSIS 
series of events on May 23rd at the ITU

We are particuarly interested to hear from people 
outside the UNECE region who might contribute as speakers or discussants.

Many thanks

karen
====

Dear Sir/Madam:

On behalf of the organizers, the UNECE ICT Group 
for Development is pleased to invite you to 
participate in the following event, being held 
within the context of the Cluster of World Summit 
on the Information Society-related events, 13-30 May 2008, in Geneva.

Stakeholder Consultation on Public Participation in Internet Governance:
Towards a code of good practice building on the 
principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention
23 May 2008, 14:00-17:00, Room C2 – International 
Telecommuniications Union Headquarters, Geneva

The Stakeholder Consultation is being jointly 
organized by the Council of Europe, United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 
and the Association for Progressive 
Communications (APC). Attached please find an 
information note concerning this event. [included below also as text]

Please note that due to limited resources, the 
United Nations would not be able to fund your participation.

To register online for the event, please see 
http://www.itu.int/wtisd/2008/events/index.html. 
For more information, see 
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm or 
contact public.participation at unece.org.

====

The Stakeholder Consultation on Public 
Participation in Internet Governance will discuss 
the results of the exploratory research into a 
“Code of good practice on public participation, 
access to information and transparency in 
Internet governance”, undertaken through a 
trilateral initiative of the Council of Europe, 
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 
(UNECE) and the Association for Progressive 
Communications (APC), initiated at the 2nd 
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Rio de Janeiro in November 2007.

The aim of the proposed “Code of good practice on 
public participation, access to information and 
transparency in Internet governance” would be to 
enable all the institutions which play a role in 
some aspect of governing the Internet to commit 
to ensuring transparency, public participation 
(of all stakeholders) and access to information in Internet governance.

The objective of the consultation is to present 
some initial research, consider the purpose and 
scope of the proposed instrument and discuss with 
panellists and participants its possible 
opportunities, limitations and risks. Any related 
initiatives in the field of Internet governance, 
such as on participatory issues, human rights 
including freedom of expression, content control, 
as well as the proposed Internet Bill of Rights, 
should be discussed and analysed with respect to 
their compatibility or complementarity with the proposed instrument.

The consultation also aims to identify other 
interested stakeholders from different 
stakeholder groups with a view to associating 
them with the initiative. It will lay the 
groundwork for a proposed workshop to be held at 
the 3rd Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 
Hyderabad, India, 3-6 December 2008, which will 
present a concrete proposal for the envisaged Code of Good Practice.

Programme:

Chairperson:

Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director, 
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Speakers:

Prof. David Souter, Department of Communication 
and Media, London School of Economics (Consultant expert)

Dr. Michael Remmert, Project Manager, “Good 
Governance in the Information Society”, 
Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs, Council of Europe

Mr. Michael Stanley-Jones, Environmental Affairs 
Officer, UNECE secretariat to the Convention on 
Access to Information, Public Participation in 
Decision-making and Access to Justice in 
Environmental Matters (“Aarhus Convention”)

Discussants:

Ms. Karen Banks, Network Development Manager, 
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Dr. William Drake, Director, Project on the 
Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO, Graduate Institute
of International and Development Studies, Geneva

Ms. Donata Rugarabamu, Senior Legal Officer, 
Secretariat of the Basel Convention, United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) (invited)

Additional speakers and discussants are being 
sought from outside the UNECE region. Please 
contact Michael Stanley-Jones (e-mail: 
michael.stanley-jones at unece.org) for further details.

For more information, please see the Council of 
Europe press release 782 (2007) of 13 November 2007.
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1210975&Site=DC&ShowBanner=no&Target=_self&BackColorInternet=F5CA75&BackColorIntranet=F5CA75&BackColorLogged=A9BACE

See also the Aarhus Convention website.
http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/11ef01bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consultation_IGPP_prov1.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 120898 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080423/11ef01bd/attachment.obj>
-------------- 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 23 14:17:58 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:17:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>


On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:12, Parminder wrote:
>
>
> No intention to make things complicated but I understand your  
> dilemma. But I
> have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether  
> we have
> a list of subscribed members.

we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web  
site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following  
statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).

>>
>> ==== ====
>> POLL TEXT
>> ==== ====
>>
>> By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
>> particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.
>>
>> If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.

New subscribers have not had a chance to declare membership because  
there has not been another vote.  but that does not mean they are not  
members, once they are on the list for 2 months, if they think they  
are members, and support the charter, then they are members.

The idea in the charter is that all who are subscribed at a moment 2  
months before the vote are potential members and they declare their  
current membership by voting, as long as the vote includes a statement  
like that above.

>
>
>> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
>> charter and then given the voting right?
>
> All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of  
> those
> who have subscribed.

>

is that a chartered activity that is within the coordinator's purview?

>
>> Or do you request all members
>> do so again even they did before?
>
> Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There  
> was a
> vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67  
> (including votes
> rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of  
> those who
> voted 'for' the charter.

true.  but we do have the list of those who voted in the election  
where you were elected.  which is a snapshot f membership at that  
moment in time.

>
>
> Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
>> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting  
>> right,
>> but
>> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the  
>> charter?
>> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).


yes, as long as the vote contains a statement like that above.

>>
>
> That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one  
> gets
> treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who  
> do not
> vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co- 
> coordinator issue.
> They become/ remain non-members?

becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems  
relatively simple and open.

>
>
> This way we still wont have a members list

you will have the list of those who voted.  i.e. active members who  
not only say they believe, but who actually participate in the vote.   
again, just a snapshot, but over time, snapshots, plus lists of people  
who participate in the day to day activity gives a good clue.

>
>
> Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read and
> subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And  
> on that
> basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2  
> month on
> the list criteria added).

it is an extra step we did not agree to in the charter.  beyond that,  
i think it changes the nature of the caucus.  and it is fine for the  
caucus to change its nature if it so wishes, but it should do so by  
changing the charter.

>
>
> Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if you  
> vote,
> it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to  
> it.. A lot
> round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of  
> membership per
> the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant  
> understand
> what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I  
> suggested.

it is what we did before.

>
>
> And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And  
> remember even
> last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in the
> charter process. People often make that choice. And members have  
> asked for
> that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.


what is a full membership list.  those who beleive but do not vote and  
may have even left the list?  and if i get a real job (not likely)  
with industry tomorrow and am, therefore, no longer qualified for  
membership, am i required to send in my resignation?  or do i just  
search my conscience and not vote next time?

>
>
> Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I  
> need to
> conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever  
> veers
> towards a consensus position here.

so why choose a two step solution when a 1 step solution will work and  
has precedence?

>>>>
>>>> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
>>>> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
>>>> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in
>> this
>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> a.
>>>
>>>
>>> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a  
>>> simple
>> and
>>> relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are  
>>> trying to
>> sort
>>> out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
>>>
>>> Parminder

i am not taking an extreme stand.  i am taking a personal stand.  as i  
said i do not really believe that voting is a reasonable method for  
representation - perhaps i am jaded on the topic.  i do believe that  
voting is sometime useful to take a snapshot when there isn't time for  
real consensus or there is a need for secrecy (which is sometimes a  
necessary evil in my opinion).  i do believe in voting with your  
feet.  in fact i believe that it is sometimes the only way a person  
has to be sure her views are heard.

in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where  
we declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a  
manner defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization,  
then i have no reason to vote in this organization even though i will  
continue to participate in the list.

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  Wed Apr 23 15:52:41 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:52:41 +0300
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
References: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com>
	 <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804231252q4f6d93f6xf7aad87008945ff4@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
<lots of stuff snipped>
>  in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where we
> declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a manner
> defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization, then i have
> no reason to vote in this organization even though i will continue to
> participate in the list.
>

I am "close-following" Avri on this, either we follow the charter...or
we dont. If we don't then we have IGC and IGC(bis) operating on the
same list, using the same name, with the same cast of
characters...would be very confusing.


-- 
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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Wed Apr 23 16:46:14 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:46:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates - reporting
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <480FA016.1060304@panos-ao.org>

Dear nomcom/all

Thank you for selecting me as IGC nominee. As per your request below, I 
would like to confirm:

1. my interest in being recommended to the MAG

2. I commit to regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list, if I was 
selected by the UN.

However : I would like here to propose that, to avoid remarks about 
current CS MAG members not reporting to IGC in the future (which I don't 
always share), it would be good that we also define clearly how selected 
MAG members should report to the group

Here are some proposals for consideration, in particular regarding MAG 
meetings:

a) - before each MAG meeting, CS members recommended by IGC should 
interact with the group, indicating the key issues of the meeting and 
making recommendations to the group as per any position to take (one 
question here : should EACH of them send a mail even if they share the 
same opinion or should they send a collective note?);

b) - during each MAG meeting, CS members interact with the caucus, 
notably to receive suggestions on what position to advocate for, 
regarding a key issue being discussed - CS MAG members can designate 
here on person within them who will interact with the Caucus primarily, 
while individual member may add additional notes if needed/they wish;

(one remark here : as MAG members are bound by the Chatham House Rule, 
CS members cannot publicly unveil the individual name of MAG members 
having advocated for a particular position...)

c)- after each MAG meeting, CS MAG members send a collective report on 
that meeting, on what positions they advocate for, etc; individual CS 
MAG member send personal additional notes if they feel they need to do 
so, notably if they don’t agree with a particular position recommended 
by the IGC rough consensus or by other CS MAG members.

Regards

KL


lists at privaterra.info a écrit :
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>
> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
> for the candidates.
>
> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
> included in the final report.
>
> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>
> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert Guerra
> 2008 IGC 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Apr 23 17:49:14 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:49:14 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <00e001c8a58b$e3876e80$b5c0ca0a@IAN>

Folks,

At this point of time the Nomcom Chair Robert Guerra is basically
incommunicado, and that is expected to be largely the case until early next
week.

There is a lot that needs to be said and will be said when the Nomcom
reports then. There are some matters still to be resolved, but it was
thought rather than delay until all matters were cleared up to post the
list. 

There will be more next week, so please be patient. But in the meantime I do
want to raise under a separate heading a particular more general matter
where the lists guidance would be useful

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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: 23 April 2008 21:46
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; vcretu at cmb.md
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; lists at privaterra.info; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
> voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
> regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
> NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
> names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
> makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
> regarding our region.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vcretu at cmb.md
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
> lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> > Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
> > Europe
> > we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
> > Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
> > these
> > parts of the world?!
> >
> > regards from Moldova,
> > Veronica Cretu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still
> > does
> > > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
> > all
> > > others.
> > >
> > > frt rgds
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
> > Since it
> > >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
> > on the
> > >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
> > More
> > >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
> > choice. It
> > >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> > >> jeanette
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > >>> Hi people,
> > >>>
> > >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
> > two
> > >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
> > while
> > >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
> > >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
> > do not
> > >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
> > to
> > >>> put it diplomatically.
> > >>>
> > >>> fraternal regards
> > >>>
> > >>> --c.a.
> > >>>
> > >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> > >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
> > of
> > >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
> > >>>> followed by
> > >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
> > recommendation
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
> > bio
> > >>>> profiles
> > >>>> for the candidates.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
> > below
> > >>>> please
> > >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
> > two
> > >>>> things -
> > >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
> > committing to
> > >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation
> > will
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> included in the final report.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
> > consideration
> > >>>> and the
> > >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
> > done...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robert Guerra
> > >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Statistics:
> > >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
> > (3), LAC
> > >>>> (2),
> > >>>> North America (3)
> > >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Africa
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Natasha Primo
> > >>>> Dawit Bekele
> > >>>> Ken Lohento
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Asia
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adam Peake
> > >>>> Izumi Aizu
> > >>>> Y. J. Park
> > >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Europe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> William Drake
> > >>>> Vittorio Bertola
> > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LAC
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Valeria Betancourt
> > >>>> Graciela Selaimen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> North America
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robin Gross
> > >>>> Milton Mueller
> > >>>> Michael Gurstein
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>
> > >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date:
> 22/04/2008 15:51
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 22/04/2008
15:51
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 23 18:29:19 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:29:19 +1000
Subject: [governance] MAG candidates - publishing details of nominess and
 self nominees
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <00ed01c8a591$7ea8ece0$b5c0ca0a@IAN>

Folks,

One matter the Nomcom needs to discuss further is whether it is appropriate
or useful to publish lists and/or details of candidates who were nominated
or who self-nominated for MAG and who were rejected. Although this was done
last year, I have some substantial reservations about this and in the
absence of an extremely clear indication from both the list in general and
from individual candidates in particular that this is appropriate, I think
our best interests are served by not publishing.

Firstly, it would not have been clear to the majority of candidates who
applied this year that their names and detailed nominations might be
published for all to see. That's not normal practice when applying for
positions, and in other Nomcoms I have been associated with (ISOC and ICANN)
is not the practice - reporting mentions number of nominees from regions,
gender etc and overall stats is the preferred method, but not names of
candidates who have not been selected. 

I think non publication is a better course of action within IGC for several
reasons. As regards candidates, it's difficult to get a slate of good
candidates to select from for CS without self nomination. And some people
feel a little embarrassed for everyone to know they nominated themselves.
And of course, many people who nominate do so in good faith but would not
actually like everyone to know they were rejected if they were not selected.


And as regards Nomcom members - I think we actually make it more difficult
to attract Nomcom volunteers if we publish details of rejected candidates.
Not that I expect assassins on my doorstep, but I do not relish ongoing
debates on a CS list about the merits and demerits of candidates selected or
not selected, knowing it is totally inappropriate to be involved as a member
of the nomcom in such discussions and knowing that those discussions are
occurring in the absence of any knowledge of the detailed considerations,
issues, accommodation of differing viewpoints and balancing of perspectives
that it necessary to come to any agreement in any nomcom.

So, I believe a CS Nomcom can do its business more effectively if it is not
required to publish rejected candidate names and details. I also believe
that, having put in place a good process for ensuring a Nomcom is selected
randomly and cannot be stacked in any way, CS should let them go about their
work and trust that they were sensible enough to take into account the range
of considerations that exist within CS. I don't think it is at all useful
for us to debate merits of individual candidates and why some were or were
not selected on this list, and therefore see no need for names to be known.

A detailed report, however, is essential, covering generalities and
explaining considerations, criteria and methodologies adopted by the Nomcom.
That and any ensuing debate should be sufficient.

I know there will be other opinions on this, and I think we should discuss
this as regards future policy. For this year, if individual candidates
indicate a preference for this information not to be published (either on
the list or in personal email to me if preferred) I will continue to argue
within Nomcom that this request for privacy should be honoured for this
year.

As regards future years, if most people really think that these details
should be published and there is a clear consensus to do so, it must be made
known to candidates applying that their details will be published. I believe
that will reduce the number of nominations, and our effectiveness in
attracting a good range of candidates, and I am not sure this is balanced by
any particular positive arising from availability of this information
outside of the selected Nomcom 

I raise this now so that the general feelings of the list can be covered in
the report the Nomcom will present next week with ay recommendations as
regards future actions.






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: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br]
> Sent: 23 April 2008 21:46
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; vcretu at cmb.md
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; lists at privaterra.info; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of the online
> voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
> regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
> NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a list of five
> names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and this is what
> makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
> regarding our region.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vcretu at cmb.md
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
> lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> > Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
> > Europe
> > we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
> > Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
> > these
> > parts of the world?!
> >
> > regards from Moldova,
> > Veronica Cretu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of course. Still
> > does
> > > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
> > all
> > > others.
> > >
> > > frt rgds
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
> > Since it
> > >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
> > on the
> > >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
> > More
> > >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
> > choice. It
> > >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> > >> jeanette
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > >>> Hi people,
> > >>>
> > >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
> > two
> > >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
> > while
> > >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note particularly that
> > >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
> > do not
> > >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
> > to
> > >>> put it diplomatically.
> > >>>
> > >>> fraternal regards
> > >>>
> > >>> --c.a.
> > >>>
> > >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> > >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
> > of
> > >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
> > >>>> followed by
> > >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
> > recommendation
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
> > bio
> > >>>> profiles
> > >>>> for the candidates.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
> > below
> > >>>> please
> > >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
> > two
> > >>>> things -
> > >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
> > committing to
> > >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation
> > will
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> included in the final report.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
> > consideration
> > >>>> and the
> > >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
> > done...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robert Guerra
> > >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Statistics:
> > >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
> > (3), LAC
> > >>>> (2),
> > >>>> North America (3)
> > >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Africa
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Natasha Primo
> > >>>> Dawit Bekele
> > >>>> Ken Lohento
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Asia
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adam Peake
> > >>>> Izumi Aizu
> > >>>> Y. J. Park
> > >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Europe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> William Drake
> > >>>> Vittorio Bertola
> > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LAC
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Valeria Betancourt
> > >>>> Graciela Selaimen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> North America
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robin Gross
> > >>>> Milton Mueller
> > >>>> Michael Gurstein
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>
> > >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date:
> 22/04/2008 15:51
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.3/1392 - Release Date: 22/04/2008
15:51
 

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Wed Apr 23 20:05:37 2008
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:05:37 +0900
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804231252q4f6d93f6xf7aad87008945ff4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com>
	 <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
	 <f65fb55e0804231252q4f6d93f6xf7aad87008945ff4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a5509d940804231705u75bf8baap2c02ef990b52a036@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Parminder for your coordinating work and Avri for clarifications.
I think we should a) follow the charter and b) also follow the precedence
unless there is a strong reason to change, and if we are to change the
process which requires the change of the charter, then we should do so.

Parminder, I like to act you to help us form the consensus, and
I have not (yet) seen a strong support for your suggestion of
asking each member if we support the cahrter explicitly before
the voting from others. I think considering the relatively low
participation in the discussion and voting etc, asking the
members twice without showing the real need may reduce the
outcome. Thus I also think what Avri explained seems practical
and also following the charter.

Thanks anyway for your hard work.

I also support the Adam's proposal of extending current co-coordinators'
term and do the election after the May consultation meeting IF the
co-coordinators feel comfortable.

izumi

2008/4/24, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>  >
>  <lots of stuff snipped>
>
> >  in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where we
>  > declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a manner
>  > defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization, then i have
>  > no reason to vote in this organization even though i will continue to
>  > participate in the list.
>  >
>
>
> I am "close-following" Avri on this, either we follow the charter...or
>  we dont. If we don't then we have IGC and IGC(bis) operating on the
>  same list, using the same name, with the same cast of
>  characters...would be very confusing.
>
>
>
>  --
>  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 avri at psg.com  Wed Apr 23 21:32:40 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:32:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <a5509d940804231705u75bf8baap2c02ef990b52a036@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a5509d940804230641j875010bidbd85bee7ff27b07@mail.gmail.com> <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com> <f65fb55e0804231252q4f6d93f6xf7aad87008945ff4@mail.gmail.com> <a5509d940804231705u75bf8baap2c02ef990b52a036@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <061732B6-940B-42DD-B7A9-F36C1748CEFD@psg.com>


On 23 Apr 2008, at 20:05, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
> I also support the Adam's proposal of extending current co- 
> coordinators'
> term and do the election after the May consultation meeting IF the
> co-coordinators feel comfortable.


I support this as well.

Also, I went through the email list and noticed that a lot of people  
have never bothered to add their real names to their subscriptions.   
My assumption is that 'members f he igc' are people with names and not  
just email addresses, I think that it is in keeping with the idea of  
one person one vote that voters have names and aren't just addresses  
that could be forwarding lists for all anyone really knows.

Just to outline what I did last time for the election for the current  
coordinators.  I went through the list, and added all the names I knew  
either because I knew them personally or because I was able to find  
some email from them in the archives that had a name attached.  I also  
asked everyone to use the address they get when I sent out a reminder  
from the email list, like I am about to do, to log into the system and  
add their real name to the record.

After that was done and some time had gone by, i then put together the  
list of potential voters - those who had names, and sent them  
instructions on the voting procedures.  I also sent a message to the  
main list indicating what I done and suggesting that anyone who  
thought they should have received the vote mailing should let me know  
so we could fix things.

Once the voters list had some time for people to confirm they were on  
it, assuming they wanted to be, the voting was then done through the  
other list.

I am assuming we can do something similar this time, if we want.  By  
accepting Adams suggestion there is time to do this.  I have already  
offered to help with the mechanics of the election and will help do  
this this, if this is what we end up doing.

cheers

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 suresh at hserus.net  Wed Apr 23 23:30:51 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:00:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] fw: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML
Message-ID: <bb0e440a0804232030k3a7890eev490f3224caf6a050@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton at icann.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:49:44 -0700
Subject: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML
To: "ietf at ietf.org" <ietf at ietf.org>

IETF Community:

IANA is currently engaged in a project to convert the IETF related
registries to XML to provide the community with multiple ways of
viewing registry information.  When conversion to XML is done, XML
will become the source format for the registries and the current
formats of html and plain text will be generated from the XML
source.  Stylesheets and schemas will also be made available together
with XML. Users will be able to access the registries in new and
useful ways, while still having the ability to see the registries in
the original style.

Part of the conversion requires IANA to "clean-up" the registries in
order to fit with the XML schemas.  IANA is not changing the data in
the registries.  IANA is cleaning up the formatting including
regularizing spacing and providing consistent display of titles,
references and registration procedures.

For those registries that need extensive format changes, IANA will be
working with the appropriate working groups and area directors to
make sure that the format changes do not affect the content of the
registry.

Those registries that are required to be in specific formats, for
example the MIBs and language subtags registries, will still be
produced in the existing formats.

IANA has consulted with the IETF XML directorate to make sure that
the XML schemas are properly formulated. Certain decisions on schemas
reflect the needs of IANA in maintaining the registries moving forward.

In the coming months, cleaned-up versions of the registries will
begin appearing on the IANA website.  If you notice any content
issues with the updated versions, or if they are not accessible,
please notify IANA staff immediately and we will work with the
appropriate parties to correct any inconsistencies.

We look forward to providing the XML versions of the registries to
better serve the community's needs.  IANA will announce in advance when
the registry conversion will be completed.  After the
conversion is complete, we intend to introduce new services such as
the ability to subscribe to be notified when specific registries are
updated


Thank you,

Michelle Cotton
IANA IETF Liaison
Email: michelle.cotton at icann.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 01:27:14 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:57:14 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080424052723.5CED5A6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>



Avri

>>reply to members queries whether
> > we have
> > a list of subscribed members.

> we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).

That number (46) is a little less than the number who subscribed to the
charter (53) not counting technical disqualification for votes) by voting
FOR it just 6 weeks earlier. Is that then the case that 7 of them lost their
'membership' by the act of non-voting. (And it is quite likely that there
would have been more among the '56' who subscribed who did not vote in the
co-coordinator election, because a few who did not subscribe could have
voted in the elections.) People choose to vote or not vote depending on the
issue, without meaning to disengage from membership of a group. If voting
'determines' membership, you are in effect calling for compulsory voting at
all times, which is a bit extreme. 

The issue here in front of the caucus is to determine if membership will
determine voting list, or voting list should determine membership. My views
on this are clear. Charter, rightly, puts the 'membership' section way
higher than the 'voting process' section and the relationship should be
obvious.

To repeat, membership section, rightly coming immediately after description
of vision, mission and objectives of the caucus, clearly says, "The members
of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to
the charter of the caucus".

Membership is a more enduring quality, voting behavior is more transient. In
fact, as noted above, I think quite likely that some people who may not have
voted in the charter poll voted in the coordinator elections. You are given
a voting ballot to choose, you think Parminder is likely to be an awful
coordinator, you 'want' to say 'no' to him, as a right to expressing your
views, because you are after all on the IGC list and affected by
coordinator's behavior, and vote 'no'. Others may not care to say anything
either way, without meaning to disengage from the group. 

That brings us to the issue of 'IGC list participant' and (versus ?) 'IGC
member' (of the advocacy group constituted by the charter) as per the
charter. First of all, I must re-assert that I am not straying into the area
of what I THINK it should be, about which many members here are eager to
jump to conclude, but only about what I read in charter. 

I think it a matter of known fact that many of those subscribing to the IGC
list take it only as place to look up information, and/ or occasionally to
express some views. They do not care - which they have a right to do - to be
associated with any advocacy positions and activity, or any declaration of
advocacy principles and a set of proposed collective activities(as the
charter does). I did not create this distinction, it is known and existing,
and the charter, in my opinion, acknowledges and formalizes it. 

Otherwise there was no reason why under membership we just did not simply
write - "The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal
capacity, who are subscribed to the IGC mailing list." Instead of, as at
present. (see above).

So, Avri, when the ballot you used asked for self-identification as a 'civil
society participant of the Internet Governance Caucus' it does not make
anything clear at all about endorsing the charter, and anyone can take it as
meaning being a CS person subscribed to the list. The reader is likely to
take more cognizance of the 'civil society' aspect of this phrase, and this
is how I also read the significance of this phrase. If one were sure one was
CS and of course one will on the IGC list if one receives this communication
one will (perhaps) not hesitate before one clicks the vote button, without
reading the charter much less affirm that one endorses it, even if only in
ones mind and to oneself. 

> > But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > gets
> > treated as having subscribed to the charter. 
> 
> becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> relatively simple and open.

No, the ballot you posted does NOT ask them not to vote if they don't -
subscribe to the charter. That's the whole point. 

Also please tell me what's your real problem with preparing a full list of
the 'membership' as per the charter which we do not have at present and use
it for voting purpose.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:48 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:12, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >
> > No intention to make things complicated but I understand your
> > dilemma. But I
> > have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether
> > we have
> > a list of subscribed members.
> 
> we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).
> 
> >>
> >> ==== ====
> >> POLL TEXT
> >> ==== ====
> >>
> >> By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
> >> particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.
> >>
> >> If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.
> 
> New subscribers have not had a chance to declare membership because
> there has not been another vote.  but that does not mean they are not
> members, once they are on the list for 2 months, if they think they
> are members, and support the charter, then they are members.
> 
> The idea in the charter is that all who are subscribed at a moment 2
> months before the vote are potential members and they declare their
> current membership by voting, as long as the vote includes a statement
> like that above.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
> >> charter and then given the voting right?
> >
> > All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of
> > those
> > who have subscribed.
> 
> >
> 
> is that a chartered activity that is within the coordinator's purview?
> 
> >
> >> Or do you request all members
> >> do so again even they did before?
> >
> > Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There
> > was a
> > vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67
> > (including votes
> > rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of
> > those who
> > voted 'for' the charter.
> 
> true.  but we do have the list of those who voted in the election
> where you were elected.  which is a snapshot f membership at that
> moment in time.
> 
> >
> >
> > Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> >> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting
> >> right,
> >> but
> >> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the
> >> charter?
> >> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).
> 
> 
> yes, as long as the vote contains a statement like that above.
> 
> >>
> >
> > That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > gets
> > treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who
> > do not
> > vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co-
> > coordinator issue.
> > They become/ remain non-members?
> 
> becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> relatively simple and open.
> 
> >
> >
> > This way we still wont have a members list
> 
> you will have the list of those who voted.  i.e. active members who
> not only say they believe, but who actually participate in the vote.
> again, just a snapshot, but over time, snapshots, plus lists of people
> who participate in the day to day activity gives a good clue.
> 
> >
> >
> > Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read and
> > subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And
> > on that
> > basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2
> > month on
> > the list criteria added).
> 
> it is an extra step we did not agree to in the charter.  beyond that,
> i think it changes the nature of the caucus.  and it is fine for the
> caucus to change its nature if it so wishes, but it should do so by
> changing the charter.
> 
> >
> >
> > Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if you
> > vote,
> > it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to
> > it.. A lot
> > round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of
> > membership per
> > the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant
> > understand
> > what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I
> > suggested.
> 
> it is what we did before.
> 
> >
> >
> > And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And
> > remember even
> > last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in the
> > charter process. People often make that choice. And members have
> > asked for
> > that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.
> 
> 
> what is a full membership list.  those who beleive but do not vote and
> may have even left the list?  and if i get a real job (not likely)
> with industry tomorrow and am, therefore, no longer qualified for
> membership, am i required to send in my resignation?  or do i just
> search my conscience and not vote next time?
> 
> >
> >
> > Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I
> > need to
> > conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever
> > veers
> > towards a consensus position here.
> 
> so why choose a two step solution when a 1 step solution will work and
> has precedence?
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
> >>>> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
> >>>> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in
> >> this
> >>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a
> >>> simple
> >> and
> >>> relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are
> >>> trying to
> >> sort
> >>> out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
> >>>
> >>> Parminder
> 
> i am not taking an extreme stand.  i am taking a personal stand.  as i
> said i do not really believe that voting is a reasonable method for
> representation - perhaps i am jaded on the topic.  i do believe that
> voting is sometime useful to take a snapshot when there isn't time for
> real consensus or there is a need for secrecy (which is sometimes a
> necessary evil in my opinion).  i do believe in voting with your
> feet.  in fact i believe that it is sometimes the only way a person
> has to be sure her views are heard.
> 
> in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where
> we declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a
> manner defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization,
> then i have no reason to vote in this organization even though i will
> continue to participate in the list.
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 01:30:19 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:00:19 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080424053031.0B3B5A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net>


McTim and Izumi

Before I go into engaging with the issues I request you to be fair in this
discussion and not keep telling me 'we should follow the charter'. 

I have said a few times not that I ONLY intend to follow the charter for the
practical purposes of (implied in the duties of the co-coordinator) making
a voting list (as per the charter, I have to repeat) and a list of IGC
members as defined by its membership criteria (again squarely as per the
charter).

Not only have I clearly said 'my opinion here doesn't count', but also that
members getting into this discussion give their views 'as per their
interpretation of the charter' (I went to the extent of saying that views on
what may generally be right may be given separately.)

So it is a bit unnecessary to keep on telling me this simple line ' lets
follow the charter'. It will be a whole lot more to the point to say I don't
think this is the right interpretation of the charter, and this one may be.
But for that one has to read the charter and some emails that have been
exchanged on its interpretation. I know it is lot simpler to just keep
telling me 'lets follow the charter' but that doesn't really serve any
purpose here. 

Also I must add that in response to my email (enclosed) explaining in full
detail my interpretation of the charter Avri responded ' But you are right,
it could be seen as a matter of interpretation'.

So can we please follow the 'interpretation of the charter' level of
conversation, rather than hurry to tell me - you are not following the
charter, and also by implication that I am intent on changing the character
of the caucus.

In fact the main reason for delay in elections has been that I knew these
issues will come up regarding the voting list, and I kept on trying to open
discussion on these larger matters (again, within the interpretation of the
charter) in the IGC to which no one responded.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:48 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:12, Parminder wrote:
> >
> >
> > No intention to make things complicated but I understand your
> > dilemma. But I
> > have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether
> > we have
> > a list of subscribed members.
> 
> we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).
> 
> >>
> >> ==== ====
> >> POLL TEXT
> >> ==== ====
> >>
> >> By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
> >> particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.
> >>
> >> If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.
> 
> New subscribers have not had a chance to declare membership because
> there has not been another vote.  but that does not mean they are not
> members, once they are on the list for 2 months, if they think they
> are members, and support the charter, then they are members.
> 
> The idea in the charter is that all who are subscribed at a moment 2
> months before the vote are potential members and they declare their
> current membership by voting, as long as the vote includes a statement
> like that above.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to the
> >> charter and then given the voting right?
> >
> > All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of
> > those
> > who have subscribed.
> 
> >
> 
> is that a chartered activity that is within the coordinator's purview?
> 
> >
> >> Or do you request all members
> >> do so again even they did before?
> >
> > Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There
> > was a
> > vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67
> > (including votes
> > rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of
> > those who
> > voted 'for' the charter.
> 
> true.  but we do have the list of those who voted in the election
> where you were elected.  which is a snapshot f membership at that
> moment in time.
> 
> >
> >
> > Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> >> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting
> >> right,
> >> but
> >> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the
> >> charter?
> >> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).
> 
> 
> yes, as long as the vote contains a statement like that above.
> 
> >>
> >
> > That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > gets
> > treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who
> > do not
> > vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co-
> > coordinator issue.
> > They become/ remain non-members?
> 
> becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> relatively simple and open.
> 
> >
> >
> > This way we still wont have a members list
> 
> you will have the list of those who voted.  i.e. active members who
> not only say they believe, but who actually participate in the vote.
> again, just a snapshot, but over time, snapshots, plus lists of people
> who participate in the day to day activity gives a good clue.
> 
> >
> >
> > Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read and
> > subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And
> > on that
> > basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2
> > month on
> > the list criteria added).
> 
> it is an extra step we did not agree to in the charter.  beyond that,
> i think it changes the nature of the caucus.  and it is fine for the
> caucus to change its nature if it so wishes, but it should do so by
> changing the charter.
> 
> >
> >
> > Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if you
> > vote,
> > it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to
> > it.. A lot
> > round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of
> > membership per
> > the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant
> > understand
> > what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I
> > suggested.
> 
> it is what we did before.
> 
> >
> >
> > And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And
> > remember even
> > last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in the
> > charter process. People often make that choice. And members have
> > asked for
> > that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.
> 
> 
> what is a full membership list.  those who beleive but do not vote and
> may have even left the list?  and if i get a real job (not likely)
> with industry tomorrow and am, therefore, no longer qualified for
> membership, am i required to send in my resignation?  or do i just
> search my conscience and not vote next time?
> 
> >
> >
> > Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I
> > need to
> > conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever
> > veers
> > towards a consensus position here.
> 
> so why choose a two step solution when a 1 step solution will work and
> has precedence?
> 
> >>>>
> >>>> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over time,
> >>>> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote very
> >>>> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised in
> >> this
> >>>> case.
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a
> >>> simple
> >> and
> >>> relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are
> >>> trying to
> >> sort
> >>> out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
> >>>
> >>> Parminder
> 
> i am not taking an extreme stand.  i am taking a personal stand.  as i
> said i do not really believe that voting is a reasonable method for
> representation - perhaps i am jaded on the topic.  i do believe that
> voting is sometime useful to take a snapshot when there isn't time for
> real consensus or there is a need for secrecy (which is sometimes a
> necessary evil in my opinion).  i do believe in voting with your
> feet.  in fact i believe that it is sometimes the only way a person
> has to be sure her views are heard.
> 
> in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus where
> we declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a
> manner defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization,
> then i have no reason to vote in this organization even though i will
> continue to participate in the list.
> 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:51:07 +0530
Size: 68704
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080424/d7afeba1/attachment.eml>

From avri at psg.com  Thu Apr 24 01:43:15 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:43:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
Message-ID: <1ADFB8AE-3682-4541-B358-801869FD7331@psg.com>


On 24 Apr 2008, at 01:27, Parminder wrote:
>
> Membership is a more enduring quality, voting behavior is more  
> transient. In
> fact, as noted above, I think quite likely that some people who may  
> not have
> voted in the charter poll voted in the coordinator elections. You  
> are given
> a voting ballot to choose, you think Parminder is likely to be an  
> awful
> coordinator, you 'want' to say 'no' to him, as a right to expressing  
> your
> views, because you are after all on the IGC list and affected by
> coordinator's behavior, and vote 'no'. Others may not care to say  
> anything
> either way, without meaning to disengage from the group.


as you will remember the chance to vote non of the above was available.
i.e assign no points to either one, yet record a vote.

> Also please tell me what's your real problem with preparing a full  
> list of
> the 'membership' as per the charter which we do not have at present  
> and use
> it for voting purpose.

As I have said, I think that the caucus should be an open caucus and  
that membership is up to each of the individual participants with no  
need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.   
that is how i think it was conceived and that is what i believe the  
charter supports.

also, as i said, it is a personal decision.  each person will make  
their own personal decision.

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 suresh at hserus.net  Thu Apr 24 01:46:38 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:16:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080424053031.0B3B5A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com> <20080424053031.0B3B5A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <000f01c8a5ce$924328a0$b6c979e0$@net>

Parminder, the trouble is, you think it's a wrong interpretation

And multiple other people (Avri, Izumi san etc .. who have far more CS
credentials than you THINK - again, THINK, McTim or I, as members of the
"technical community") have widely different (but shared) interpretations of
the charter than you do.

And you stick to your guns, each time and insist on trying to ram your
interpretation through.

	suresh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:00 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Avri Doria'; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'Avri Doria'
> Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> McTim and Izumi
> 
> Before I go into engaging with the issues I request you to be fair in
> this
> discussion and not keep telling me 'we should follow the charter'.
> 
> I have said a few times not that I ONLY intend to follow the charter
> for the
> practical purposes of (implied in the duties of the co-coordinator)
> making
> a voting list (as per the charter, I have to repeat) and a list of IGC
> members as defined by its membership criteria (again squarely as per
> the
> charter).
> 
> Not only have I clearly said 'my opinion here doesn't count', but also
> that
> members getting into this discussion give their views 'as per their
> interpretation of the charter' (I went to the extent of saying that
> views on
> what may generally be right may be given separately.)
> 
> So it is a bit unnecessary to keep on telling me this simple line '
> lets
> follow the charter'. It will be a whole lot more to the point to say I
> don't
> think this is the right interpretation of the charter, and this one may
> be.
> But for that one has to read the charter and some emails that have been
> exchanged on its interpretation. I know it is lot simpler to just keep
> telling me 'lets follow the charter' but that doesn't really serve any
> purpose here.
> 
> Also I must add that in response to my email (enclosed) explaining in
> full
> detail my interpretation of the charter Avri responded ' But you are
> right,
> it could be seen as a matter of interpretation'.
> 
> So can we please follow the 'interpretation of the charter' level of
> conversation, rather than hurry to tell me - you are not following the
> charter, and also by implication that I am intent on changing the
> character
> of the caucus.
> 
> In fact the main reason for delay in elections has been that I knew
> these
> issues will come up regarding the voting list, and I kept on trying to
> open
> discussion on these larger matters (again, within the interpretation of
> the
> charter) in the IGC to which no one responded.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 11:48 PM
> > To: Governance Caucus
> > Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> >
> >
> > On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:12, Parminder wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No intention to make things complicated but I understand your
> > > dilemma. But I
> > > have to conduct elections and also reply to members queries whether
> > > we have
> > > a list of subscribed members.
> >
> > we have the list of people who voted in the first election on the web
> > site and they are 'members' by virtue of having agreed to following
> > statement on the ballot (as dictated by the charter).
> >
> > >>
> > >> ==== ====
> > >> POLL TEXT
> > >> ==== ====
> > >>
> > >> By voting you affirm that you consider yourself a Civil Society
> > >> particpant of the Internet Governance Caucus.
> > >>
> > >> If you cannot so affirm, please do not vote.
> >
> > New subscribers have not had a chance to declare membership because
> > there has not been another vote.  but that does not mean they are not
> > members, once they are on the list for 2 months, if they think they
> > are members, and support the charter, then they are members.
> >
> > The idea in the charter is that all who are subscribed at a moment 2
> > months before the vote are potential members and they declare their
> > current membership by voting, as long as the vote includes a
> statement
> > like that above.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >> Parminder, do you request new members to say if they subscribe to
> the
> > >> charter and then given the voting right?
> > >
> > > All 'new' members were already asked, and I have a separate list of
> > > those
> > > who have subscribed.
> >
> > >
> >
> > is that a chartered activity that is within the coordinator's purview?
> >
> > >
> > >> Or do you request all members
> > >> do so again even they did before?
> > >
> > > Nobody has done any process of 'subscribing' to the charter. There
> > > was a
> > > vote on the charter which went 56 - 3, with a quorum of 67
> > > (including votes
> > > rendered invalid for technical reasons). We DONT have a list of
> > > those who
> > > voted 'for' the charter.
> >
> > true.  but we do have the list of those who voted in the election
> > where you were elected.  which is a snapshot f membership at that
> > moment in time.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Or, Avri, do you suggest that those who
> > >> subscribed the list for more than two months be given the voting
> > >> right,
> > >> but
> > >> by voting they must be treated as they have subscribed to the
> > >> charter?
> > >> (To me that seems OK, but I want to confirm).
> >
> >
> > yes, as long as the vote contains a statement like that above.
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > > That what Avri says.  But I don't understand how does by voting one
> > > gets
> > > treated as having subscribed to the charter. And what of those who
> > > do not
> > > vote because they just do not care to make a choice on co-
> > > coordinator issue.
> > > They become/ remain non-members?
> >
> > becasue the ballot asks them not to vote if they don't.  seems
> > relatively simple and open.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > This way we still wont have a members list
> >
> > you will have the list of those who voted.  i.e. active members who
> > not only say they believe, but who actually participate in the vote.
> > again, just a snapshot, but over time, snapshots, plus lists of
> people
> > who participate in the day to day activity gives a good clue.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Whats wrong with sending an email to all asking if they have read
> and
> > > subscribe to the charter they cut paste a single line in reply. And
> > > on that
> > > basis prepare a members list, which is then the voting list (with 2
> > > month on
> > > the list criteria added).
> >
> > it is an extra step we did not agree to in the charter.  beyond that,
> > i think it changes the nature of the caucus.  and it is fine for the
> > caucus to change its nature if it so wishes, but it should do so by
> > changing the charter.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is what you are suggesting that we add a line on the ballot - if
> you
> > > vote,
> > > it will be taken that you have read the charter and subscribe to
> > > it.. A lot
> > > round about manner of ascertaining the primary criterion of
> > > membership per
> > > the charter but that fine, if everyone wants that. And I cant
> > > understand
> > > what advantage does it have vis a vis a more direct process I
> > > suggested.
> >
> > it is what we did before.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > And if we go by it still not have a full membership list. And
> > > remember even
> > > last time less people voted in the co-coordinator election than in
> the
> > > charter process. People often make that choice. And members have
> > > asked for
> > > that list, which I don't think is an unfair request.
> >
> >
> > what is a full membership list.  those who beleive but do not vote
> and
> > may have even left the list?  and if i get a real job (not likely)
> > with industry tomorrow and am, therefore, no longer qualified for
> > membership, am i required to send in my resignation?  or do i just
> > search my conscience and not vote next time?
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Lastly, I am asking this purely from a practical point of view. I
> > > need to
> > > conduct the elections as per the charter. I will go with whatever
> > > veers
> > > towards a consensus position here.
> >
> > so why choose a two step solution when a 1 step solution will work
> and
> > has precedence?
> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If this means I can't vote, then it means i can't vote.  Over
> time,
> > >>>> especially as a US citizen, I have learned to value the vote
> very
> > >>>> little and have no personal objection to being disenfranchised
> in
> > >> this
> > >>>> case.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> a.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Avri, I request you not to take such an extreme stand. It is a
> > >>> simple
> > >> and
> > >>> relatively straightforward organizational matter that we are
> > >>> trying to
> > >> sort
> > >>> out, and I am sure we will collectively be able to do it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Parminder
> >
> > i am not taking an extreme stand.  i am taking a personal stand.  as
> i
> > said i do not really believe that voting is a reasonable method for
> > representation - perhaps i am jaded on the topic.  i do believe that
> > voting is sometime useful to take a snapshot when there isn't time
> for
> > real consensus or there is a need for secrecy (which is sometimes a
> > necessary evil in my opinion).  i do believe in voting with your
> > feet.  in fact i believe that it is sometimes the only way a person
> > has to be sure her views are heard.
> >
> > in the case of the IGC i believe it should remain an open caucus
> where
> > we declare our membership by our participation and we do this in a
> > manner defined by our charter.  if we are no longer that organization,
> > then i have no reason to vote in this organization even though i will
> > continue to participate in the list.
> >
> > 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 avri at psg.com  Thu Apr 24 01:51:03 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:51:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <1ADFB8AE-3682-4541-B358-801869FD7331@psg.com>
References: <1ADFB8AE-3682-4541-B358-801869FD7331@psg.com>
Message-ID: <B241E178-66BF-4AB0-8C10-A17681F80D7D@psg.com>


On 24 Apr 2008, at 01:43, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> as you will remember the chance to vote non of the above was  
> available.
> i.e assign no points to either one, yet record a vote.

as an aside, i believe any election without an enforceable "none of  
the above" option is rigged.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 02:13:26 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:43:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <1ADFB8AE-3682-4541-B358-801869FD7331@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080424061337.BC878E2E46@smtp3.electricembers.net>


> As I have said, I think that the caucus should be an open caucus and
> that membership is up to each of the individual participants with no
> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
> that is how i think it was conceived and that is what i believe the
> charter supports.
> 
> also, as i said, it is a personal decision.  each person will make
> their own personal decision.
> 
> a.
>

Anything that I said against it being a personal decision? Or it against it
being an open caucus?

>that membership is up to each of the individual participants 

You again seem to make the distinction between member and participant, which
I used to develop my logic in the last email, in interpreting the charter. 

>with no
> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.


I also asked it at the time of voting only, and for the purpose of voting.

Still cant understand why we wrote that line in membership clause ' who
subscribe to the charter of the caucus'. In this spirit I expect to soon
hear that all that lofty stuff in vision and mission, and objectives is also
as meaningless. There is no group upholding any special collective vision
and values and seeking to organize to do some specific set of activities in
direction of certain goals. Well..

Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 11:13 AM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 24 Apr 2008, at 01:27, Parminder wrote:
> >
> > Membership is a more enduring quality, voting behavior is more
> > transient. In
> > fact, as noted above, I think quite likely that some people who may
> > not have
> > voted in the charter poll voted in the coordinator elections. You
> > are given
> > a voting ballot to choose, you think Parminder is likely to be an
> > awful
> > coordinator, you 'want' to say 'no' to him, as a right to expressing
> > your
> > views, because you are after all on the IGC list and affected by
> > coordinator's behavior, and vote 'no'. Others may not care to say
> > anything
> > either way, without meaning to disengage from the group.
> 
> 
> as you will remember the chance to vote non of the above was available.
> i.e assign no points to either one, yet record a vote.
> 
> > Also please tell me what's your real problem with preparing a full
> > list of
> > the 'membership' as per the charter which we do not have at present
> > and use
> > it for voting purpose.
> 
> As I have said, I think that the caucus should be an open caucus and
> that membership is up to each of the individual participants with no
> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
> that is how i think it was conceived and that is what i believe the
> charter supports.
> 
> also, as i said, it is a personal decision.  each person will make
> their own personal decision.
> 
> 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Apr 24 02:42:53 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:42:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] MAG candidates - publishing details of nominess
In-Reply-To: <00ed01c8a591$7ea8ece0$b5c0ca0a@IAN>
Message-ID: <C435F88D.11201%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Ian,

Your make a good case for following the model employed in other nomcoms, and
I'd support doing it that way if it's the expressed collective preference on
how to proceed going forward. Might be useful to specify the procedure for
future reference on www.igcaucus.org (I presume we don't want to get into
revising the charter to build this in). The issue in the recent case was
simply that it was a deviation from what had been done previously and
there'd been no prior statement or agreement to the change, so the practice
was out of line with expectations.  Not surprising then that some people
would take note of the change and ask, what's up with that?   But not a big
deal either, just slippage in communication.

Cheers,

Bill


On 4/24/08 12:29 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> One matter the Nomcom needs to discuss further is whether it is appropriate
> or useful to publish lists and/or details of candidates who were nominated
> or who self-nominated for MAG and who were rejected. Although this was done
> last year, I have some substantial reservations about this and in the
> absence of an extremely clear indication from both the list in general and
> from individual candidates in particular that this is appropriate, I think
> our best interests are served by not publishing.
> 
> Firstly, it would not have been clear to the majority of candidates who
> applied this year that their names and detailed nominations might be
> published for all to see. That's not normal practice when applying for
> positions, and in other Nomcoms I have been associated with (ISOC and ICANN)
> is not the practice - reporting mentions number of nominees from regions,
> gender etc and overall stats is the preferred method, but not names of
> candidates who have not been selected.
> 
> I think non publication is a better course of action within IGC for several
> reasons. As regards candidates, it's difficult to get a slate of good
> candidates to select from for CS without self nomination. And some people
> feel a little embarrassed for everyone to know they nominated themselves.
> And of course, many people who nominate do so in good faith but would not
> actually like everyone to know they were rejected if they were not selected.
> 
> 
> And as regards Nomcom members - I think we actually make it more difficult
> to attract Nomcom volunteers if we publish details of rejected candidates.
> Not that I expect assassins on my doorstep, but I do not relish ongoing
> debates on a CS list about the merits and demerits of candidates selected or
> not selected, knowing it is totally inappropriate to be involved as a member
> of the nomcom in such discussions and knowing that those discussions are
> occurring in the absence of any knowledge of the detailed considerations,
> issues, accommodation of differing viewpoints and balancing of perspectives
> that it necessary to come to any agreement in any nomcom.
> 
> So, I believe a CS Nomcom can do its business more effectively if it is not
> required to publish rejected candidate names and details. I also believe
> that, having put in place a good process for ensuring a Nomcom is selected
> randomly and cannot be stacked in any way, CS should let them go about their
> work and trust that they were sensible enough to take into account the range
> of considerations that exist within CS. I don't think it is at all useful
> for us to debate merits of individual candidates and why some were or were
> not selected on this list, and therefore see no need for names to be known.
> 
> A detailed report, however, is essential, covering generalities and
> explaining considerations, criteria and methodologies adopted by the Nomcom.
> That and any ensuing debate should be sufficient.
> 
> I know there will be other opinions on this, and I think we should discuss
> this as regards future policy. For this year, if individual candidates
> indicate a preference for this information not to be published (either on
> the list or in personal email to me if preferred) I will continue to argue
> within Nomcom that this request for privacy should be honoured for this
> year.
> 
> As regards future years, if most people really think that these details
> should be published and there is a clear consensus to do so, it must be made
> known to candidates applying that their details will be published. I believe
> that will reduce the number of nominations, and our effectiveness in
> attracting a good range of candidates, and I am not sure this is balanced by
> any particular positive arising from availability of this information
> outside of the selected Nomcom
> 
> I raise this now so that the general feelings of the list can be covered in
> the report the Nomcom will present next week with ay recommendations as
> regards future actions.
> 




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

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


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Apr 24 02:45:14 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:45:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080424053031.0B3B5A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com>
	 <20080424053031.0B3B5A6C1E@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804232345q21344f3ap14bbc9c3be730b1a@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>  McTim and Izumi
>
>  Before I go into engaging with the issues I request you to be fair in this
>  discussion and not keep telling me 'we should follow the charter'.

This implies that Izumi san and I have been unfair. I think this is erroneous.


>
>  I have said a few times not that I ONLY intend to follow the charter for the
>  practical purposes of (implied in the duties of the co-coordinator) making
>  a voting list (as per the charter, I have to repeat) and a list of IGC
>  members as defined by its membership criteria (again squarely as per the
>  charter).


Here is perhaps where you go off track.

There is nowhere in my reading of the charter (and, since I have
quoted it in the past, i think you could have, fairly, assumed that I
had read it) that pre-election list making is implicit in the duties
of the coordinator.  Nowhere in the charter does the term "voting
list" appear, rather this list, comes post-election.  "A list of the
self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with
the results of the election." and "A list of those who self-affirm
membership, but not their votes, will be published after the vote."

If we want to change the charter, then we need the latest list; "The
membership requirements for amending the charter are based on the most
currently available voters list. In amending the charter, everyone who
voted in the previous election will be deemed a member for amending
the charter."

When I "close-followed" Avri, it meant that I was in agreement with
her interpretation.

-- 
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 avri at psg.com  Thu Apr 24 02:50:12 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:50:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <1ADFB8AE-3682-4541-B358-801869FD7331@psg.com>
Message-ID: <3D2CBBAB-1E31-4B7E-B467-E8CE08E3D26D@psg.com>


On 24 Apr 2008, at 02:13, Parminder wrote:

>>
>> that membership is up to each of the individual participants
>
> You again seem to make the distinction between member and  
> participant, which
> I used to develop my logic in the last email, in interpreting the  
> charter.

yes. it seems to me the concept of membership matters when we do  
official caucus stuff - like vote.  or make nomcoms. or act as  
coordinators ...

>> with no
>> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
>
>
> I also asked it at the time of voting only, and for the purpose of  
> voting.

then we are in agreement?

> Still cant understand why we wrote that line in membership clause '  
> who
> subscribe to the charter of the caucus'.

i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the  
charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all  
you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort  
of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for  
receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the  
ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just  
a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support  
the charter of the IGC..

> In this spirit I expect to soon
> hear that all that lofty stuff in vision and mission, and objectives  
> is also
> as meaningless.

ok:  i wonder, does signing a statement saying you support lofty stuff  
in vision and mission really mean anything?   and even if it does mean  
something personally, why do you think that other people's  
interpretations of what the lofty stuff means bears any resemblance to  
what you think it means or what i think it means?


> There is no group upholding any special collective vision
> and values and seeking to organize to do some specific set of  
> activities in
> direction of certain goals. Well..


i think the stuff the caucus does or doesn't do is what matters.  and  
after one looks back at the product of the IGC one will be able to see  
if those lofty vision words meant something and what they actually  
meant.

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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Thu Apr 24 02:54:19 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:54:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] MAG candidates - publishing details of nominess
In-Reply-To: <C435F88D.11201%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <C435F88D.11201%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <48102E9B.5090900@wzb.eu>

Hi, I support all of Peter's reservations on publishing the details of 
applications and I also did when we had the very same discussion in the 
past (in the context of the first MAG nominations?). I hope that there 
is now more sympathy on this list for protecting the identity of those 
who have not been nominated.

In any case, Peter is right about one point. Applicants should have been 
told beforehand if the nomcom intends to publish their applications. We 
should thus discuss future procedures rather than those of past 
nominations. This doesn't apply to information about the nominees. I 
think its good to put their applications on a website.

jeanette

William Drake wrote:
> Hi Ian,
> 
> Your make a good case for following the model employed in other nomcoms, and
> I'd support doing it that way if it's the expressed collective preference on
> how to proceed going forward. Might be useful to specify the procedure for
> future reference on www.igcaucus.org (I presume we don't want to get into
> revising the charter to build this in). The issue in the recent case was
> simply that it was a deviation from what had been done previously and
> there'd been no prior statement or agreement to the change, so the practice
> was out of line with expectations.  Not surprising then that some people
> would take note of the change and ask, what's up with that?   But not a big
> deal either, just slippage in communication.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On 4/24/08 12:29 AM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>>
>> One matter the Nomcom needs to discuss further is whether it is appropriate
>> or useful to publish lists and/or details of candidates who were nominated
>> or who self-nominated for MAG and who were rejected. Although this was done
>> last year, I have some substantial reservations about this and in the
>> absence of an extremely clear indication from both the list in general and
>> from individual candidates in particular that this is appropriate, I think
>> our best interests are served by not publishing.
>>
>> Firstly, it would not have been clear to the majority of candidates who
>> applied this year that their names and detailed nominations might be
>> published for all to see. That's not normal practice when applying for
>> positions, and in other Nomcoms I have been associated with (ISOC and ICANN)
>> is not the practice - reporting mentions number of nominees from regions,
>> gender etc and overall stats is the preferred method, but not names of
>> candidates who have not been selected.
>>
>> I think non publication is a better course of action within IGC for several
>> reasons. As regards candidates, it's difficult to get a slate of good
>> candidates to select from for CS without self nomination. And some people
>> feel a little embarrassed for everyone to know they nominated themselves.
>> And of course, many people who nominate do so in good faith but would not
>> actually like everyone to know they were rejected if they were not selected.
>>
>>
>> And as regards Nomcom members - I think we actually make it more difficult
>> to attract Nomcom volunteers if we publish details of rejected candidates.
>> Not that I expect assassins on my doorstep, but I do not relish ongoing
>> debates on a CS list about the merits and demerits of candidates selected or
>> not selected, knowing it is totally inappropriate to be involved as a member
>> of the nomcom in such discussions and knowing that those discussions are
>> occurring in the absence of any knowledge of the detailed considerations,
>> issues, accommodation of differing viewpoints and balancing of perspectives
>> that it necessary to come to any agreement in any nomcom.
>>
>> So, I believe a CS Nomcom can do its business more effectively if it is not
>> required to publish rejected candidate names and details. I also believe
>> that, having put in place a good process for ensuring a Nomcom is selected
>> randomly and cannot be stacked in any way, CS should let them go about their
>> work and trust that they were sensible enough to take into account the range
>> of considerations that exist within CS. I don't think it is at all useful
>> for us to debate merits of individual candidates and why some were or were
>> not selected on this list, and therefore see no need for names to be known.
>>
>> A detailed report, however, is essential, covering generalities and
>> explaining considerations, criteria and methodologies adopted by the Nomcom.
>> That and any ensuing debate should be sufficient.
>>
>> I know there will be other opinions on this, and I think we should discuss
>> this as regards future policy. For this year, if individual candidates
>> indicate a preference for this information not to be published (either on
>> the list or in personal email to me if preferred) I will continue to argue
>> within Nomcom that this request for privacy should be honoured for this
>> year.
>>
>> As regards future years, if most people really think that these details
>> should be published and there is a clear consensus to do so, it must be made
>> known to candidates applying that their details will be published. I believe
>> that will reduce the number of nominations, and our effectiveness in
>> attracting a good range of candidates, and I am not sure this is balanced by
>> any particular positive arising from availability of this information
>> outside of the selected Nomcom
>>
>> I raise this now so that the general feelings of the list can be covered in
>> the report the Nomcom will present next week with ay recommendations as
>> regards future actions.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 03:31:07 2008
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:31:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] Re: IANA Update: Project to convert registries to XML
In-Reply-To: <bb0e440a0804232030k3a7890eev490f3224caf6a050@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bb0e440a0804232030k3a7890eev490f3224caf6a050@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080424073107.GA23728@nic.fr>

> IANA is currently engaged in a project to convert the IETF related
> registries to XML

Great, the DNS root zone file will now be in XML, it will change
everything for the Internet governance :-)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 04:26:55 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:56:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <3D2CBBAB-1E31-4B7E-B467-E8CE08E3D26D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080424082705.E63AAA6C28@smtp2.electricembers.net>


Avri

> yes. it seems to me the concept of membership matters when we do
> official caucus stuff - like vote.  or make nomcoms. or act as
> coordinators ...

Yes that's right. 

> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  

Yes. As I said I am only trying to ensure that I have a voting list as per
charter, and also a members list which is both appropriate to have, and has
been asked for, legitimately, by some members.

i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..

It is easiest for me to be able to do both the processes in one step, as
long as the first step of charter affirmation is clear, and a condition for
the second. I would very much like to - solves my stated objective of
getting a members list and a voters list. Whether it CAN be done in a single
step is a matter of technical and process possibility, ensuring other
requirements that the votes remain secret etc. I had difficulty in coming up
with an automated process to do it in a single step, and will very much like
to explore that possibility.

But the questions remains what is so big an issue with two steps that we
have had to go through so many loops of arguments and counter-arguments on
this list, some getting into fairly personal ascriptions. I still have no
answer to this, and will very much like to have some illumination on this. 

You as a coordinator also choose some multiple processes of sending emails
affirming name etc which are not mentioned in the charter but you thought
they were right to do (rightly so). 

i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot.

It is still a 'prior assertion of support for the charter'. Whether non
asserting leads to an invalid vote or not receiving a ballot in no way
different in any substantive way. Is it? A one step or two step is only a
process possibility issue, I repeat. 

> ok:  i wonder, does signing a statement saying you support lofty stuff
> in vision and mission really mean anything? 

It matters to me. It matters to all CS people I mostly work with. As much as
I know it matters to any group, including a corporate group, working with
any kind of sincerity and purposefulness. 


  and even if it does mean
> something personally, why do you think that other people's
> interpretations of what the lofty stuff means bears any resemblance to
> what you think it means or what i think it means?

I wonder Avri why you/ we spent all the time on writing the charter. We did
not require it to register with a gov authority, did we? We wrote it because
we thought it had a collective meaning for us, but you say it doesn't have
one for you.

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 24 Apr 2008, at 02:13, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> that membership is up to each of the individual participants
> >
> > You again seem to make the distinction between member and
> > participant, which
> > I used to develop my logic in the last email, in interpreting the
> > charter.
> 
> yes. it seems to me the concept of membership matters when we do
> official caucus stuff - like vote.  or make nomcoms. or act as
> coordinators ...
> 
> >> with no
> >> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
> >
> >
> > I also asked it at the time of voting only, and for the purpose of
> > voting.
> 
> then we are in agreement?
> 
> > Still cant understand why we wrote that line in membership clause '
> > who
> > subscribe to the charter of the caucus'.
> 
> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..
> 
> > In this spirit I expect to soon
> > hear that all that lofty stuff in vision and mission, and objectives
> > is also
> > as meaningless.
> 
> ok:  i wonder, does signing a statement saying you support lofty stuff
> in vision and mission really mean anything?   and even if it does mean
> something personally, why do you think that other people's
> interpretations of what the lofty stuff means bears any resemblance to
> what you think it means or what i think it means?
> 
> 
> > There is no group upholding any special collective vision
> > and values and seeking to organize to do some specific set of
> > activities in
> > direction of certain goals. Well..
> 
> 
> i think the stuff the caucus does or doesn't do is what matters.  and
> after one looks back at the product of the IGC one will be able to see
> if those lofty vision words meant something and what they actually
> meant.
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 06:40:18 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <3D2CBBAB-1E31-4B7E-B467-E8CE08E3D26D@psg.com>
Message-ID: <20080424104028.8A3A8A6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net>


Avri

> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..

Also to clarify I don't interpret the intention of the charter to mean that

 
" the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote"

Charter says

"As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
this charter..."

I mean 'voter must personally ascertain' to mean clearly and positively
ascertain and not by a roundabout implication. 

And instead of submitting 'I do ascertain that I am a member of the IGC
based on membership criteria mentioned (elsewhere) in the charter'

It is much more straightforward to ask for the statement (made easy to do by
just copy pasting) 

'I do ascertain that I have read the charter at .... and subscribe to it'

Since the charter mentions such subscription as the only substantive
criterion of membership.

This has to be done as a part of the voting process. Now, as I said, whether
voting process is one step or two, is matter of practicality. I am unable to
believe that we have arguing so long for this bit.... wherein couple of
suggestions that I work within the charter, and that I am trying to ram in
my views came in.

What is it really that we are disputing so hard????

Parminder 

 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 12:20 PM
> To: Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> 
> On 24 Apr 2008, at 02:13, Parminder wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> that membership is up to each of the individual participants
> >
> > You again seem to make the distinction between member and
> > participant, which
> > I used to develop my logic in the last email, in interpreting the
> > charter.
> 
> yes. it seems to me the concept of membership matters when we do
> official caucus stuff - like vote.  or make nomcoms. or act as
> coordinators ...
> 
> >> with no
> >> need for any declaration except for when doing things like voting.
> >
> >
> > I also asked it at the time of voting only, and for the purpose of
> > voting.
> 
> then we are in agreement?
> 
> > Still cant understand why we wrote that line in membership clause '
> > who
> > subscribe to the charter of the caucus'.
> 
> i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> the charter of the IGC..
> 
> > In this spirit I expect to soon
> > hear that all that lofty stuff in vision and mission, and objectives
> > is also
> > as meaningless.
> 
> ok:  i wonder, does signing a statement saying you support lofty stuff
> in vision and mission really mean anything?   and even if it does mean
> something personally, why do you think that other people's
> interpretations of what the lofty stuff means bears any resemblance to
> what you think it means or what i think it means?
> 
> 
> > There is no group upholding any special collective vision
> > and values and seeking to organize to do some specific set of
> > activities in
> > direction of certain goals. Well..
> 
> 
> i think the stuff the caucus does or doesn't do is what matters.  and
> after one looks back at the product of the IGC one will be able to see
> if those lofty vision words meant something and what they actually
> meant.
> 
> a.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Apr 24 07:03:15 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:03:15 +0900
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080424104028.8A3A8A6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080424104028.8A3A8A6C20@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <p0624081cc43616aa5bf3@[221.115.9.42]>

>Avri
>
>>  i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
>>  charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
>>  you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
>>  of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
>>  receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
>>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
>>  a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
>>  the charter of the IGC..
>
>Also to clarify I don't interpret the intention of the charter to mean that
>
>
>" the act of filling out the
>>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
>>  a reminder of what it means to vote"


You are right about what the charter says, but I believe Avri is 
correct in quoting the text from the poll used when we voted on the 
charter and so created the caucus.

I am pretty sure I was one of the people (three?) who voted against 
the charter.  But I considered the act of voting a commitment to the 
IGC and my membership of it. By voting I was agreeing to abide by the 
majority decision. This is common (unless the vote part of a GNSO 
policy development process ... :- )

I subscribe to the charter, but that does not mean I support it 100%. 
I know that as a member I have the right to try and amend the charter 
(Meryem, that's your point, right.  Of course you can be a member and 
want to change some aspect of an organization, your membership shows 
a willingness to follow the "rules" until such time as you can affect 
the change you want.  In good faith  etc  etc... and I'm not 
suggesting you have bad faith :-) )

If I want to stop being a member I can write to a coordinator, or to 
the list (as Veni did) and say I am no longer a member.  Or I could 
simply unsubscribe from the list (but subscribing to the list does 
not = membership of the caucus.)  I consider myself to be a member 
until I decide otherwise, or I do something so foul that the 
membership finds a way to kick me out.

I see no need to ask people who have voting rights (i.e. all who had 
the right to vote in the last election we held, was it for the 
appeals team?) to reaffirm membership.  If they are still subscribed 
to the list they are still members.

Anyone subscribed to the list who wishes to be a member should write 
to the coordinator (or person coordinating membership) and say they 
wish to be a member, that they have read the charter and subscribe to 
it.  Parminder, you could write to the list asking people to do just 
that. Perhaps do it a couple of times over the next few weeks.

Anyone who has been subscribed for more than two months before the 
date the election process begins gets to vote.  (And please, let's 
not start the election process until after the next consultation, say 
around May 25, so people who responded to the membership call can 
participate.)

I think we a re making things more complicated than they need to be.

Best,

Adam


>Charter says
>
>"As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they
>are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in
>this charter..."
>
>I mean 'voter must personally ascertain' to mean clearly and positively
>ascertain and not by a roundabout implication.
>
>And instead of submitting 'I do ascertain that I am a member of the IGC
>based on membership criteria mentioned (elsewhere) in the charter'
>
>It is much more straightforward to ask for the statement (made easy to do by
>just copy pasting)
>
>'I do ascertain that I have read the charter at .... and subscribe to it'
>
>Since the charter mentions such subscription as the only substantive
>criterion of membership.
>
>This has to be done as a part of the voting process. Now, as I said, whether
>voting process is one step or two, is matter of practicality. I am unable to
>believe that we have arguing so long for this bit.... wherein couple of
>suggestions that I work within the charter, and that I am trying to ram in
>my views came in.
>
>What is it really that we are disputing so hard????
>
>Parminder
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From kettemann at gmx.at  Thu Apr 24 07:34:47 2008
From: kettemann at gmx.at (Matthias C. Kettemann)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:34:47 +0200
Subject: [governance] A new book on Internet Governance in the Information
In-Reply-To: <48102E9B.5090900@wzb.eu>
References: <C435F88D.11201%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <48102E9B.5090900@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <48107057.2040602@gmx.at>

Dear friends,

we would hereby like to announce the publication of a new book on 
Internet Governance and the Information Society:

Wolfgang Benedek, Veronika Bauer, Matthias C. Kettemann (eds.):
Internet Governance and the Information Society: Global Perspectives and 
European Dimensions (Utrecht: Eleven Int'l Publishing, 2008)
ISBN: 978-90-77596-56-2, Hardbound, xiv + 176 pages, Publication date: 
April 2008, Price: EUR 45 / US$ 68.

Abstract:
The legal, social and economic implications of the information society 
permeate every fiber of public life in the real world, influence 
politics and policies and test the limits of traditional notions of law, 
concepts of regulations and systems of governance.
 
Uniting an impressive array of authors this book broaches the challenges 
of internet governance in the information society. Renowned scholars and 
practitioners from, among others, the Council of Europe, the OSCE, the 
United Nations Internet Governance Forum, academia and business shed 
lights on both, the global perspectives and the European dimensions of 
internet governance. Among the authors are regular contributors to this 
list such as Meryem Marzouki  and Wolfgang Kleinwaechter.

The book identifies 2010 as the year where fundamental decisions on the 
future of the internet as we know it will be reached. Aimed at students, 
teachers and practitioners of law, sociology, international relations 
and technology, the contributions describe the challenges ahead and the 
road to travel by and is essential reading for anyone interested in the 
future of internet governance.
 
Purchasing Information:
This publication is available from Eleven International Publishing. To 
purchase this publication please go to 
http://www.elevenpub.com/Publications/ShowPublications.aspx?searchId=978-90-77596-56-2 

 
Contact Information:
Should you have any question, please contact 
wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at <mailto:wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at> or 
matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at <mailto:matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at>.


-- 
Matthias C. Kettemann (Mag. iur, Univ of Graz 2006; CDT, University of 
Geneva 2005)
Research Assistant
Institute of International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria

T +43 316 380 6711 (office)
M +43 676 701 7175 (mobile)
F +43 316 380 9455 (fax)
E matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080424/cdddacfe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Flyer - Internet Governance and the Information Society.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 136414 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080424/cdddacfe/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 parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Apr 24 08:10:01 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:40:01 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <p0624081cc43616aa5bf3@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <20080424121013.8CECBA6C27@smtp2.electricembers.net>


> I think we a re making things more complicated than they need to be.

I agree. I have been made to spend many times more time on this than I
needed to. Thanks.

> Anyone subscribed to the list who wishes to be a member should write
> to the coordinator (or person coordinating membership) and say they
> wish to be a member, that they have read the charter and subscribe to
> it.  Parminder, you could write to the list asking people to do just
> that. Perhaps do it a couple of times over the next few weeks.

I proposed an easier option, knowing that we have less than fully energetic
membership. I will write to all and let them reply by cut pasting a line of
affirmation of the charter and accepting membership. 

> I see no need to ask people who have voting rights (i.e. all who had
> the right to vote in the last election we held, was it for the
> appeals team?) to reaffirm membership.  If they are still subscribed
> to the list they are still members.

The last voting was for coordinators. We have a list of voters, but the
charter subscription question was not asked, so the membership is not being
'reaffirmed'. And I see no harm in sending the email to every person on the
IGC list so that we have a complete list of members, with clearly
ascertained basic criterion for membership. After all they are only a small
part of the whole list that I will sending email to.

Parminder  


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> >Avri
> >
> >>  i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> >>  charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> >>  you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> >>  of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> >>  receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> >>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> >>  a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> >>  the charter of the IGC..
> >
> >Also to clarify I don't interpret the intention of the charter to mean
> that
> >
> >
> >" the act of filling out the
> >>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> >>  a reminder of what it means to vote"
> 
> 
> You are right about what the charter says, but I believe Avri is
> correct in quoting the text from the poll used when we voted on the
> charter and so created the caucus.
> 
> I am pretty sure I was one of the people (three?) who voted against
> the charter.  But I considered the act of voting a commitment to the
> IGC and my membership of it. By voting I was agreeing to abide by the
> majority decision. This is common (unless the vote part of a GNSO
> policy development process ... :- )
> 
> I subscribe to the charter, but that does not mean I support it 100%.
> I know that as a member I have the right to try and amend the charter
> (Meryem, that's your point, right.  Of course you can be a member and
> want to change some aspect of an organization, your membership shows
> a willingness to follow the "rules" until such time as you can affect
> the change you want.  In good faith  etc  etc... and I'm not
> suggesting you have bad faith :-) )
> 
> If I want to stop being a member I can write to a coordinator, or to
> the list (as Veni did) and say I am no longer a member.  Or I could
> simply unsubscribe from the list (but subscribing to the list does
> not = membership of the caucus.)  I consider myself to be a member
> until I decide otherwise, or I do something so foul that the
> membership finds a way to kick me out.
> 
> I see no need to ask people who have voting rights (i.e. all who had
> the right to vote in the last election we held, was it for the
> appeals team?) to reaffirm membership.  If they are still subscribed
> to the list they are still members.
> 
> Anyone subscribed to the list who wishes to be a member should write
> to the coordinator (or person coordinating membership) and say they
> wish to be a member, that they have read the charter and subscribe to
> it.  Parminder, you could write to the list asking people to do just
> that. Perhaps do it a couple of times over the next few weeks.
> 
> Anyone who has been subscribed for more than two months before the
> date the election process begins gets to vote.  (And please, let's
> not start the election process until after the next consultation, say
> around May 25, so people who responded to the membership call can
> participate.)
> 
> I think we a re making things more complicated than they need to be.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> >Charter says
> >
> >"As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that
> they
> >are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere
> in
> >this charter..."
> >
> >I mean 'voter must personally ascertain' to mean clearly and positively
> >ascertain and not by a roundabout implication.
> >
> >And instead of submitting 'I do ascertain that I am a member of the IGC
> >based on membership criteria mentioned (elsewhere) in the charter'
> >
> >It is much more straightforward to ask for the statement (made easy to do
> by
> >just copy pasting)
> >
> >'I do ascertain that I have read the charter at .... and subscribe to it'
> >
> >Since the charter mentions such subscription as the only substantive
> >criterion of membership.
> >
> >This has to be done as a part of the voting process. Now, as I said,
> whether
> >voting process is one step or two, is matter of practicality. I am unable
> to
> >believe that we have arguing so long for this bit.... wherein couple of
> >suggestions that I work within the charter, and that I am trying to ram
> in
> >my views came in.
> >
> >What is it really that we are disputing so hard????
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 08:14:43 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:44:43 +0530
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <p0624081cc43616aa5bf3@[221.115.9.42]>
Message-ID: <20080424121452.B960BA6C19@smtp2.electricembers.net>


>please, let's not start the election process until after the next
>consultation, say around May 25, so people who responded to the membership
>call can
>participate.)

OK, I will do accordingly. Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:33 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] coordinator elections
> 
> >Avri
> >
> >>  i see no problem with including a statement about supporting the
> >>  charter in the ballot as well as self describing as CS.  is this all
> >>  you were asking for.  i misunderstood.  i thought you wanted some sort
> >>  of prior assertion of support for the charter as a prerequisite for
> >>  receiving a ballot. whereas i think that the act of filling out the
> >>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> >>  a reminder of what it means to vote; ie. that you are CS and support
> >>  the charter of the IGC..
> >
> >Also to clarify I don't interpret the intention of the charter to mean
> that
> >
> >
> >" the act of filling out the
> >>  ballot is the assertion and the words included on the ballot are just
> >>  a reminder of what it means to vote"
> 
> 
> You are right about what the charter says, but I believe Avri is
> correct in quoting the text from the poll used when we voted on the
> charter and so created the caucus.
> 
> I am pretty sure I was one of the people (three?) who voted against
> the charter.  But I considered the act of voting a commitment to the
> IGC and my membership of it. By voting I was agreeing to abide by the
> majority decision. This is common (unless the vote part of a GNSO
> policy development process ... :- )
> 
> I subscribe to the charter, but that does not mean I support it 100%.
> I know that as a member I have the right to try and amend the charter
> (Meryem, that's your point, right.  Of course you can be a member and
> want to change some aspect of an organization, your membership shows
> a willingness to follow the "rules" until such time as you can affect
> the change you want.  In good faith  etc  etc... and I'm not
> suggesting you have bad faith :-) )
> 
> If I want to stop being a member I can write to a coordinator, or to
> the list (as Veni did) and say I am no longer a member.  Or I could
> simply unsubscribe from the list (but subscribing to the list does
> not = membership of the caucus.)  I consider myself to be a member
> until I decide otherwise, or I do something so foul that the
> membership finds a way to kick me out.
> 
> I see no need to ask people who have voting rights (i.e. all who had
> the right to vote in the last election we held, was it for the
> appeals team?) to reaffirm membership.  If they are still subscribed
> to the list they are still members.
> 
> Anyone subscribed to the list who wishes to be a member should write
> to the coordinator (or person coordinating membership) and say they
> wish to be a member, that they have read the charter and subscribe to
> it.  Parminder, you could write to the list asking people to do just
> that. Perhaps do it a couple of times over the next few weeks.
> 
> Anyone who has been subscribed for more than two months before the
> date the election process begins gets to vote.  (And please, let's
> not start the election process until after the next consultation, say
> around May 25, so people who responded to the membership call can
> participate.)
> 
> I think we a re making things more complicated than they need to be.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> >Charter says
> >
> >"As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that
> they
> >are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere
> in
> >this charter..."
> >
> >I mean 'voter must personally ascertain' to mean clearly and positively
> >ascertain and not by a roundabout implication.
> >
> >And instead of submitting 'I do ascertain that I am a member of the IGC
> >based on membership criteria mentioned (elsewhere) in the charter'
> >
> >It is much more straightforward to ask for the statement (made easy to do
> by
> >just copy pasting)
> >
> >'I do ascertain that I have read the charter at .... and subscribe to it'
> >
> >Since the charter mentions such subscription as the only substantive
> >criterion of membership.
> >
> >This has to be done as a part of the voting process. Now, as I said,
> whether
> >voting process is one step or two, is matter of practicality. I am unable
> to
> >believe that we have arguing so long for this bit.... wherein couple of
> >suggestions that I work within the charter, and that I am trying to ram
> in
> >my views came in.
> >
> >What is it really that we are disputing so hard????
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 08:45:49 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:45:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080424121452.B960BA6C19@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <20080424121452.B960BA6C19@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <335D3BB3-BC94-4CCC-B37A-AE0676E4693A@psg.com>


On 24 Apr 2008, at 08:14, Parminder wrote:
>
>> please, let's not start the election process until after the next
>> consultation, say around May 25, so people who responded to the  
>> membership
>> call can
>> participate.)
>
> OK, I will do accordingly. Parminder

actually if you want them to be able to participate, won't you have to  
wait 2 months more?

> And I see no harm in sending the email to every person on the
> IGC list so that we have a complete list of members, with clearly
> ascertained basic criterion for membership. After all they are only  
> a small
> part of the whole list that I will sending email to.

i see it as an exclusionary move that makes the caucus less open.  as  
i said, i will not respond to what i consider a demand for an oath.

while i have given my reasons before and won't do so yet again, I do  
have one more reason:

i consider you doing this  a presumption of extra authority for the  
role of coordinator as you will be deciding a-priori  that only those  
who affirm to you that they support the charter and its vision  
deserves a vote.

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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Apr 24 09:16:16 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:16:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
Message-ID: <s8104ff5.065@gwia203.syr.edu>

Hi,

I've only been pretending to ignore this thread.

I need to understand better what is involved, but maybe could offer to be a co-convenor with someone better organized than me.

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 04/23/08 5:04 AM >>>
Ok, Parminder,

I will be online everyday in Campus Num*rique Francophone de Kinshasa.

Baudouin

2008/4/22 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

>  Bill, Thanks for the clarifications.
>
>
>
> We urgently need someone to take this work up. Adam, you had shown some
> interest in making this a mid-term review of the IGF. Or you Vittorio, you
> can bring some continuity for the last years group. Lee? Willie?. Anyone
> else.
>
>
>
> We already have three members – Karen, Baudouin and Jeremy - ready to be
> in the WG. Need a convener. I assure anyone who takes this job up that it
> will quite fulfilling J, and not too taxing, as Bill explained.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:48 AM
> *To:* Governance
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC workshops
>
>
>
> Hi Parminder,
>
> On the role and mandate workshop:  Having done it last year, I don't think
> it's right for me to do it again, and anyway I'm in the jurisdiction group.
>  My suggestion would be that we get new blood involved, people who've been
> active in the caucus, have thought a lot about this, but can broker between
> different tendencies etc.   Some obvious convener candidates like Willie,
> Lee, others, come to mind if they'd be interested...
>
> It may be that part of what's holding people back is the prospect of a
> complicated and time consuming process, but in reality, this really
> shouldn't be too hard.  It's not necessary to renegotiate the ws description
> from scratch and totally rethink the co-sponsors and speakers in the next
> nine days.  Last year's event went well and everyone seemed to come away
> fairly happy (including some parties that fretted about it in advance), so
> we seemingly established a certain level of trust and understanding that the
> event is useful and won't blow up the joint.  I assume the MAG would expect
> to see a proposal for a v.2 from us (or more to the point, would be rather
> surprised not to), and that we shouldn't have to re-convince them too
> elaborately as long as we cross the T's and dot the I's in terms of being MS
> with diverse views etc.  So why not resubmit largely the same text and reach
> out to the more or less the same kinds of co-sponsors and non-CS speakers we
> had last year (ICC/Ayesha, ISOC/Bill, developing country/India, developed
> country/EC, etc), come up with three new IGC speakers with varying shades of
> positions, submit whatever we have by April 30, and then add later as
> needed.
>
> BTW, for reference, the report on last year's version of the ws is now at
> http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
> On 4/21/08 4:57 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
>
> 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
> Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
> Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
> convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill and
> Vittorio from the last year's group (Karen has said no to convening, and I
> do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours, will
> one of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the last
> year's group will be good.
>
> 2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction
>
> The WG is working
>
> 3. 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'
>
> IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if
> anyone from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions.
>
> 4. Rights based approach the Internet – Implications for IG
>
> A draft is being developed.
>
> As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
> proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground to
> propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th – 29th.
>
> Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these proposals,
> it will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and the
> appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right away.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parminder
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]<parminder at itforchange.net%5d>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGC workshops
>
> Hi All
>
> This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
>
>
>    1. Role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
> The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam
> and others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the IGF
> at the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need to
> build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you know, we
> did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that we
> make this a regular IGF feature.
>
> Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop
> proposals (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given
> says; "Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the
> mandate of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think this
> is an important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last year,
> that it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops.
>
>
>    1. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
>
> A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
>
>
>    1. Internationalization
>
>
> As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
> workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please see
> Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work with
> IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to Milton
> (and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.
>
>
>    1. A rights based approach to the Internet – Implications for IG
>
>
> Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will
> soon be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants to
> join this WG is welcome.
>
> If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss them
> in the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These need
> to be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as possible to
> fill in the workshop application form which lists the following questions.
>
>
>    1. *Name of proposed workshop*
>    2. *Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.*
>    3. *Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
>    have you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
>    workshop.*
>    4. *Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
>    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
>    to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
>    gender balance.*
>    5. *Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
>    issues under discussion?*
>    6. *Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
>    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
>    Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.*
>    7. *List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
>    organized in the past.*
>    8. *Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
>    you submit a workshop report?*
>    9. *9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>    under ?*
>
>
> The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at least
> provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See* **
> http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm> .
> F*or answering question 9,* *please see the list of topics mentioned on
> this link, though workshops outside these topics can also be proposed.
> *
> *
> Thanks. Parminder
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>


-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
T*l:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 09:51:11 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:51:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com> <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Carlos,
You seem to be interpreting the number of names per region as an
indicator of the level of representation a region will get. This is
completely wrong, as others have explained. The MAG members from that
list -- if in fact there are any -- will be chosen by the Secretariat
and the UN SG. The lower the number of names in a region, the more
likely those people are to be selected if the UN SG chooses to get
someone from that region. Indeed, your LA&C caucus can submit 100 other
names directly to Kummer, and as far as we know those names have the
same chance as the IGC submissions.  

I think the caucus has more important things to discuss than the
difference between 2 and 3 names in a list that has no binding effect.
Can we move on, please?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:46 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; vcretu at cmb.md
> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; lists at privaterra.info; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> Dear people,
> 
> It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of 
> the online
> voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
> regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
> NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a 
> list of five
> names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and 
> this is what
> makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
> regarding our region.
> 
> frt rgds
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vcretu at cmb.md
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
> lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
> 
> > Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
> > Europe
> > we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
> > Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
> > these
> > parts of the world?!
> > 
> > regards from Moldova,
> > Veronica Cretu
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of 
> course. Still
> > does
> > > not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
> > all
> > > others.
> > >
> > > frt rgds
> > >
> > > --c.a.
> > >
> > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> > >> Hi Carlos,
> > >>
> > >> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
> > Since it
> > >> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
> > on the
> > >> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
> > More
> > >> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
> > choice. It
> > >> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
> > >> jeanette
> > >>
> > >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> > >>> Hi people,
> > >>>
> > >>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
> > two
> > >>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
> > while
> > >>> all other regions have at least three -- I note 
> particularly that
> > >>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
> > do not
> > >>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
> > to
> > >>> put it diplomatically.
> > >>>
> > >>> fraternal regards
> > >>>
> > >>> --c.a.
> > >>>
> > >>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
> > >>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
> > of
> > >>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
> > >>>> followed by
> > >>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
> > recommendation
> > >>>> for
> > >>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
> > bio
> > >>>> profiles
> > >>>> for the candidates.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
> > below
> > >>>> please
> > >>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
> > two
> > >>>> things -
> > >>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
> > committing to
> > >>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The 
> confirmation
> > will
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> included in the final report.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
> > consideration
> > >>>> and the
> > >>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
> > done...
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robert Guerra
> > >>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -----
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Statistics:
> > >>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
> > (3), LAC
> > >>>> (2),
> > >>>> North America (3)
> > >>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Africa
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Natasha Primo
> > >>>> Dawit Bekele
> > >>>> Ken Lohento
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Asia
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Adam Peake
> > >>>> Izumi Aizu
> > >>>> Y. J. Park
> > >>>> Iffat Rose Gill
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Europe
> > >>>>
> > >>>> William Drake
> > >>>> Vittorio Bertola
> > >>>> Jeanette Hofmann
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> LAC
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Valeria Betancourt
> > >>>> Graciela Selaimen
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> North America
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Robin Gross
> > >>>> Milton Mueller
> > >>>> Michael Gurstein
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>>
> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ____________________________________________________________
> > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>>
> > >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >>
> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
> > >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > 
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 09:54:33 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:54:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <p06240815c434d2e21200@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <20080423113855.A4BFA6784B@smtp1.electricembers.net> <p06240815c434d2e21200@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC744@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Yes, Parminder and Adam are both right, we are all busy, there's a lot
of traffic on the list, many other things going on. It is unrealistic to
expect crisp, scheduled discussions to take place here. The ball is in
Kummer's court now. Let's move on. 

> -----Original Message-----
Parminder
> >
> >First is the issue of developing criteria for nomination. I 
> >gave repeated calls, even set aside days, for the caucus 
> >to discuss these criteria, and requested the nomcom both 
> >to listen to the conversation and pick up the
> >sense of the caucus, and ask specific questions if found 
> necessary. Though
> 
Adam 
> I meant that it wasn't clear there was any 
> conclusion to our meandering discussions and any 
> instruction given to the nomcom.  But what your 
> write below clarifies somewhat, thanks for that.
> 

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Apr 24 10:05:45 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:05:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <20080424052723.5CED5A6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>
References: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com> <20080424052723.5CED5A6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC745@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


I am having trouble understanding the point of this debate. 
It seems to me that Parminder is asking for a simple and sensible act:
all those voting should confirm that they subscribe to the charter. Why
is this complicated? 

If Avri is right and most people who vote have already somehow indicated
their support for it at an earlier time, what does it hurt to confirm it
again? And Parminder is obviously right that there is a group of people
who didn't vote last time whose status is ambiguous. 

You will recognize my leitmotif today: let's move on. 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 10:06:45 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:36:45 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGC workshops
In-Reply-To: <s8104ff5.065@gwia203.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080424140657.B3FEAA6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net>


Thanks Lee.

Jeremy has dealt with this subject some, and I think isnt too disorganized.

What about you and Jeremy co-convene, though I will leave the chief
convening responsibility with you since Jeremy isn't certain he can make to
Hyd. And you have a fairly well organized Karen with you :) she was in the
group which did this workshop last time. I know Schombe less, but am sure he
will be great help too.

So off you go. Thanks.

And I will be there standing by to help in whichever way I can.

For other less tuned in - this is a WG that will try to get a draft for our
proposed workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' and also help to organise
it in case the proposal is agreed to by the caucus.


Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:46 PM
> To: b.schombe at gmail.com; parminder at itforchange.net;
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC workshops
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've only been pretending to ignore this thread.
> 
> I need to understand better what is involved, but maybe could offer to be
> a co-convenor with someone better organized than me.
> 
> 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 04/23/08 5:04 AM >>>
> Ok, Parminder,
> 
> I will be online everyday in Campus Num*rique Francophone de Kinshasa.
> 
> Baudouin
> 
> 2008/4/22 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
> 
> >  Bill, Thanks for the clarifications.
> >
> >
> >
> > We urgently need someone to take this work up. Adam, you had shown some
> > interest in making this a mid-term review of the IGF. Or you Vittorio,
> you
> > can bring some continuity for the last years group. Lee? Willie?. Anyone
> > else.
> >
> >
> >
> > We already have three members - Karen, Baudouin and Jeremy - ready to be
> > in the WG. Need a convener. I assure anyone who takes this job up that
> it
> > will quite fulfilling J, and not too taxing, as Bill explained.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >   ------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:48 AM
> > *To:* Governance
> > *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGC workshops
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Parminder,
> >
> > On the role and mandate workshop:  Having done it last year, I don't
> think
> > it's right for me to do it again, and anyway I'm in the jurisdiction
> group.
> >  My suggestion would be that we get new blood involved, people who've
> been
> > active in the caucus, have thought a lot about this, but can broker
> between
> > different tendencies etc.   Some obvious convener candidates like
> Willie,
> > Lee, others, come to mind if they'd be interested...
> >
> > It may be that part of what's holding people back is the prospect of a
> > complicated and time consuming process, but in reality, this really
> > shouldn't be too hard.  It's not necessary to renegotiate the ws
> description
> > from scratch and totally rethink the co-sponsors and speakers in the
> next
> > nine days.  Last year's event went well and everyone seemed to come away
> > fairly happy (including some parties that fretted about it in advance),
> so
> > we seemingly established a certain level of trust and understanding that
> the
> > event is useful and won't blow up the joint.  I assume the MAG would
> expect
> > to see a proposal for a v.2 from us (or more to the point, would be
> rather
> > surprised not to), and that we shouldn't have to re-convince them too
> > elaborately as long as we cross the T's and dot the I's in terms of
> being MS
> > with diverse views etc.  So why not resubmit largely the same text and
> reach
> > out to the more or less the same kinds of co-sponsors and non-CS
> speakers we
> > had last year (ICC/Ayesha, ISOC/Bill, developing country/India,
> developed
> > country/EC, etc), come up with three new IGC speakers with varying
> shades of
> > positions, submit whatever we have by April 30, and then add later as
> > needed.
> >
> > BTW, for reference, the report on last year's version of the ws is now
> at
> > http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > On 4/21/08 4:57 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> >
> > Update on workshop proposals for IGF.
> >
> > 1. Role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> > Still looking for volunteers to convene and participate in WG. Karen and
> > Baudouin Schombe have expressed interest to participate. Anyone ready to
> > convene? . Someone from the group that did it last year? We have Bill
> and
> > Vittorio from the last year's group (Karen has said no to convening, and
> I
> > do not want to). If no one volunteers to convene in the next 24 hours,
> will
> > one of you please take up the task? In any case participation from the
> last
> > year's group will be good.
> >
> > 2. Trans-boundary jurisdiction
> >
> > The WG is working
> >
> > 3. 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'
> >
> > IGP/ Milton is going ahead with planning this. They have asked again if
> > anyone from the IGC will like to participate and given suggestions.
> >
> > 4. Rights based approach the Internet - Implications for IG
> >
> > A draft is being developed.
> >
> > As per the timeline given below, we will like to keep a draft for each
> > proposal for comments of the group from 23rd to 26th, and if good ground
> to
> > propose a consensus process is made out, it will be done over 27th -
> 29th.
> >
> > Since people are giving their valuable time to developing these
> proposals,
> > it will be good if members who have any comments on these proposals, and
> the
> > appropriateness of these being sponsored by the IGC, share them right
> away.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Parminder
> [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]<parminder at itforchange.net%5d>
> > *Sent:* Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:26 PM
> > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [governance] IGC workshops
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > This is where we stand on our workshop proposals.
> >
> >
> >    1. Role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> >
> > The call is open for volunteers to convene and join this group. As Adam
> > and others said this should be a very useful exercise of evaluating the
> IGF
> > at the mid-point of its (expectedly, initial) 5 year life. We will need
> to
> > build on the work that got done for this workshop last year. As you
> know, we
> > did hold a workshop in the same topic last year and the proposal is that
> we
> > make this a regular IGF feature.
> >
> > Significantly, the IGF page listing the topic under which workshop
> > proposals (http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm ) may be given
> > says; "Workshops on other issues relating to Internet governance and the
> > mandate of the IGF are also welcome." We seem to be already in. I think
> this
> > is an important impact of IGC's first ever workshop on this topic last
> year,
> > that it is now a part of the official list of themes for workshops.
> >
> >
> >    1. Trans-boundary jurisdiction issues
> >
> > A WG convened by Bret is developing this proposal.
> >
> >
> >    1. Internationalization
> >
> >
> > As proposed earlier, in this slot it will be useful to put in the IGP
> > workshop proposal on 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?' Please
> see
> > Milton's email of the 17th on this. Any IGC member who wishes to work
> with
> > IGP group to develop/ influence this workshop proposal may write to
> Milton
> > (and/or me), and can become a part of a WG.
> >
> >
> >    1. A rights based approach to the Internet - Implications for IG
> >
> >
> > Michael and Karen are co-coordinating a WG on this, and a proposal will
> > soon be shared for discussion, as with other proposal. Anyone who wants
> to
> > join this WG is welcome.
> >
> > If we can have the proposals from the WGs by the 23rd we can discuss
> them
> > in the IGC till the 26th and then put them for a consensus call. These
> need
> > to be submitted by 30th. We should get as much information in as
> possible to
> > fill in the workshop application form which lists the following
> questions.
> >
> >
> >    1. *Name of proposed workshop*
> >    2. *Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
> >    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.*
> >    3. *Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
> >    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether
> you
> >    have you approached them about their willingness to participate in
> proposed
> >    workshop.*
> >    4. *Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
> >    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take
> steps
> >    to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity
> and
> >    gender balance.*
> >    5. *Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
> >    issues under discussion?*
> >    6. *Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
> >    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the
> Tunis
> >    Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.*
> >    7. *List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
> >    organized in the past.*
> >    8. *Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
> >    you submit a workshop report?*
> >    9. *9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
> >    under ?*
> >
> >
> > The workshop proposal request says that at this stage we need to "at
> least
> > provide answers to questions # 1,2,4 and 9".See* **
> > http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm
> >
> <http://www.intgovforum.org/workshop_info.htm><http://www.intgovforum.org/
> workshop_info.htm> .
> > F*or answering question 9,* *please see the list of topics mentioned on
> > this link, though workshops outside these topics can also be proposed.
> > *
> > *
> > Thanks. Parminder
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> T*l:+243998983491
> email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
> http://akimambo.unblog.fr
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 11:11:44 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:11:44 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com> <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4810A330.5040600@rits.org.br>

I am not. The LA&C Caucus is, with a good reason -- we have chosen the 
reps through an open, quite extensive process in which nearly all 
organizations interested in IG issues in the region have participated.

We also know (the LA&C Caucus) that we can (and should) direct our 
indications to the secretariat, so we of course did it. But receiving 
proper support for the names indicated from the IGC would add legitimacy 
  and reinforce relationships with regional efforts.

It is curious that the arguments I have read so far try to convince us 
numbers are irrelevant, so why then resist to include one more from our 
list??

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Carlos,
> You seem to be interpreting the number of names per region as an
> indicator of the level of representation a region will get. This is
> completely wrong, as others have explained. The MAG members from that
> list -- if in fact there are any -- will be chosen by the Secretariat
> and the UN SG. The lower the number of names in a region, the more
> likely those people are to be selected if the UN SG chooses to get
> someone from that region. Indeed, your LA&C caucus can submit 100 other
> names directly to Kummer, and as far as we know those names have the
> same chance as the IGC submissions.  
> 
> I think the caucus has more important things to discuss than the
> difference between 2 and 3 names in a list that has no binding effect.
> Can we move on, please?
> 
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: carlos a. afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:46 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; vcretu at cmb.md
>> Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; lists at privaterra.info; alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
>>
>> Dear people,
>>
>> It is important to take into account that, as facilitator of 
>> the online
>> voting process by the LA&C Caucus, I am expressing these concerns
>> regarding regional balance in the final list of indications by the IGC
>> NomCom on behalf of the LA&C Caucus -- who has submitted a 
>> list of five
>> names to the IGC (and to the IGF secretariat as well), and 
>> this is what
>> makes it even more difficult to understand the NomCom's decision
>> regarding our region.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vcretu at cmb.md
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Carlos Afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>,
>> lists at privaterra.info, alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org
>> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:08:12 -0400 (EDT)
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
>>
>>> Greetings, just a brief comment/question: when we are talking about
>>> Europe
>>> we definitely do not see Central and Eastern Europe nor we see Newly
>>> Independent States (NIS) either ... Any applications received from
>>> these
>>> parts of the world?!
>>>
>>> regards from Moldova,
>>> Veronica Cretu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Interesting... but argument valid for all regions, of 
>> course. Still
>>> does
>>>> not explain why our region got only two indications as compared to
>>> all
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> frt rgds
>>>>
>>>> --c.a.
>>>>
>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>> Hi Carlos,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure the number of nominees really matters that much.
>>> Since it
>>>>> is unlikely that civil society will be able to increase its share
>>> on the
>>>>> MAG, less than half of the nominees have a chance to be selected.
>>> More
>>>>> candidates from a region means that the secretariat has more
>>> choice. It
>>>>> certainly won't lead to a larger representation from that region.
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>>
>>>>> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>>>>> Hi people,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My immediate reaction: Latin America and the Caribbean have only
>>> two
>>>>>> candidates indicated (none of the two are from the Caribbean),
>>> while
>>>>>> all other regions have at least three -- I note 
>> particularly that
>>>>>> Europe and North America (developed regions) have three each. I
>>> do not
>>>>>> think the NomCom was very successful regarding regional balance,
>>> to
>>>>>> put it diplomatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lists at privaterra.info wrote:
>>>>>>> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
>>> of
>>>>>>> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process
>>>>>>> followed by
>>>>>>> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed,
>>> recommendation
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete
>>> bio
>>>>>>> profiles
>>>>>>> for the candidates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed
>>> below
>>>>>>> please
>>>>>>> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming
>>> two
>>>>>>> things -
>>>>>>> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2.
>>> committing to
>>>>>>> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The 
>> confirmation
>>> will
>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>> included in the final report.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for
>>> consideration
>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost
>>> done...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Guerra
>>>>>>> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> # of nominations submitted: 33
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Statistics:
>>>>>>> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe
>>> (3), LAC
>>>>>>> (2),
>>>>>>> North America (3)
>>>>>>> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Africa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natasha Primo
>>>>>>> Dawit Bekele
>>>>>>> Ken Lohento
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Asia
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adam Peake
>>>>>>> Izumi Aizu
>>>>>>> Y. J. Park
>>>>>>> Iffat Rose Gill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Europe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> William Drake
>>>>>>> Vittorio Bertola
>>>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LAC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Valeria Betancourt
>>>>>>> Graciela Selaimen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> North America
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robin Gross
>>>>>>> Milton Mueller
>>>>>>> Michael Gurstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>
>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 24 11:52:37 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:52:37 -0400
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC745@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com> <20080424052723.5CED5A6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC745@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <2C92C4A1-24F6-4A15-B95E-12B6021E7EE8@psg.com>


On 24 Apr 2008, at 10:05, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I am having trouble understanding the point of this debate.


Well i think it is a discussion between two viewpoints on the notion  
of the IGC and what membership means in the caucus.

I am arguing for a viewpoint that this is an open caucus that people  
pass into and out of in a very fluid manner.  We all participate in a  
list and it is only when we are doing membership types of activities,  
such as voting, that each of us needs to examine our continuing  
participation and our continuing relation to CS and determine if we  
consider ourselves members or just observers.  I believe this is a  
dynamic process that allows for maximum openness and flexibility.  And  
I believe it represents the way the charter was written.

If I understand Parminder correctly, he believes that we need a more  
solid notion of membership where people take a stand and affirm their  
membership through a statement of support prior to engaging in any  
activities that require membership.  I think he believes this is  
important to reinforce the commonality of members acceptance of the  
vision and mission.  And that it is important so that at any moment we  
have a list of who is a member who s not. He believes that this is  
inherent in the way the charter was written and its inclusion of the  
idea of support for the vision and mission.

In principle I do not believe there is anything wrong with this sort  
of membership notion, and when I tried to work with others to form the  
Multistakeholder Modalities WG we used exactly this notion - people  
had to declare their support of a charter based on mutlistakeholder  
principles in order to be members.

In this case, however, I do not think it is what we agreed to and i do  
not believe it is the best option for this caucus.

> It seems to me that Parminder is asking for a simple and sensible act:
> all those voting should confirm that they subscribe to the charter.  
> Why
> is this complicated?

The complication has nothing to do with the confirmation itself.  It  
has to do with the notion of doing it prior to the distribution of  
ballots as opposed to doing it as part of the vote.  I believe that we  
both think this is significant since we have differing opinions on it  
that we have discussed for a long time in private as well as public.   
I think our different viewpoints on a two stage process as opposed to  
one stage process is directly linked to our differing views of the  
caucus and the appropriate definition of membership.

> You will recognize my leitmotif today: let's move on.

By all means, though I do assume that the teams working on the  
proposals are all busy working on their proposals while we engage in  
belly button inspection.   One thing i think Parminder and I do agree  
on is that discussing what it means to be a participant/member of the  
caucus is a discussion that can occur usefully at some point.  Though  
of course this moment may not be the best moment.  But I am not sure  
how we will recognize when the right moment has come.

Note: I assume that Parminder can correct my impression of his view  
point.  i am sure that my simplistic explanations of his postions can  
use great improvement and refinement.

a.

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

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


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Apr 24 12:00:57 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:00:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <4810A330.5040600@rits.org.br>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com> <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4810A330.5040600@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC74D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> It is curious that the arguments I have read so far try to 
> convince us numbers are irrelevant, so why then resist to include one 
> more from our list??

Simple answer -- and you should know what it is. You can't re-open a
process like this unless you want to do the whole thing over again. And
that means anyone else dissatisfied, not just you, has the same status
to reopen it.

We chose to do this through a Nomcom process. Nominating Committees are
by definition non-transparent bodies that make selections based on
private discussions among themselves. 

You can't say, "we accept a Nominating Committee to make the
recommendations for the caucus" and then say, AFTER you see the results,
"well, no, we don't want the Nomcom to make the decision, we want to
change the results based on complaints on the list." Either the Nomcom
makes the decisions or it doesn't.

Don't like the process? Change it next time. 

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Apr 24 13:04:09 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:04:09 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC74D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br> <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu> <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br> <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com> <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <4810A330.5040600@rits.org.br> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC74D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4810BD89.5070902@rits.org.br>

I can't, neither do the LA&C Caucus. But this does not preclude us from 
stating our opinion on the quality of the result.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> It is curious that the arguments I have read so far try to 
>> convince us numbers are irrelevant, so why then resist to include one 
>> more from our list??
> 
> Simple answer -- and you should know what it is. You can't re-open a
> process like this unless you want to do the whole thing over again. And
> that means anyone else dissatisfied, not just you, has the same status
> to reopen it.
> 
> We chose to do this through a Nomcom process. Nominating Committees are
> by definition non-transparent bodies that make selections based on
> private discussions among themselves. 
> 
> You can't say, "we accept a Nominating Committee to make the
> recommendations for the caucus" and then say, AFTER you see the results,
> "well, no, we don't want the Nomcom to make the decision, we want to
> change the results based on complaints on the list." Either the Nomcom
> makes the decisions or it doesn't.
> 
> Don't like the process? Change it next 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 raul at lacnic.net  Thu Apr 24 13:13:27 2008
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:13:27 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC74D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.
 edu>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
 <480E0C4C.7060701@rits.org.br>
 <480E19F2.7090800@wzb.eu>
 <480E5E11.1090802@rits.org.br>
 <31747.86.106.210.135.1208930892.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>
 <WorldClient-F200804230845.AA45510057@rits.org.br>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC743@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
 <4810A330.5040600@rits.org.br>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC74D@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20080424141018.04c30f40@lacnic.net>

At 01:00 p.m. 24/04/2008, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > It is curious that the arguments I have read so far try to
> > convince us numbers are irrelevant, so why then resist to include one
> > more from our list??
>
>Simple answer -- and you should know what it is. You can't re-open a
>process like this unless you want to do the whole thing over again. And
>that means anyone else dissatisfied, not just you,

It is not "just Carlos". It is a large number of 
people in LAC region who is dissatisfied.

Raúl



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

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


From graciela at rits.org.br  Thu Apr 24 15:38:18 2008
From: graciela at rits.org.br (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:38:18 -0300
Subject: [governance] IGC Nomcom - Slate of candidates
In-Reply-To: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
References: <45793.213.41.252.238.1208856220.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <4810E1AA.3090806@rits.org.br>

Dear all,

Thank you very much for selecting me as a nominee, and thanks to the 
nomcom for the work done so far.

As requested, I confirm my interest in being recommended to the MAG and 
commit to regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list, if I am 
selected by the UN.

regards,
Graciela Selaimen
Rits - Brasil
www.rits.org.br
www.nupef.org.br



lists at privaterra.info escreveu:
> As IGC 08 Nomcom chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate of
> candidates the nomcom has come to agreement on.
>
> A complete final report will follow ASAP documenting - process followed by
> the nomcom, evaluation criteria and issues discussed, recommendation for
> IGC and future nomcoms to consider as well as set of complete bio profiles
> for the candidates.
>
> The nomcom requests at this time that the candidates listed below please
> send an email to - nomcom08 at lists.privaterra.org - confirming two things -
> 1. their interest in being recommended to the MAG and 2. committing to
> regularly post updates to the IGC mailing list. The confirmation will be
> included in the final report.
>
> I thank all the persons who submitted their name for consideration and the
> nomcom for its very hard work and engaging discussions.
>
> We still have a report to complete, but our task is almost done...
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert Guerra
> 2008 IGC Nomcom Chair.
>
>
> -----
>
>
> # of nominations submitted: 33
>
> Total # of candidates recommended by Nomcom : 15
>
> Statistics:
> - Regional allocation : Africa (3), Asia Pacific (4), Europe (3), LAC (2),
> North America (3)
> - Female: 7 (46.6%) , Male 8 (53.3%)
>
> Africa
>
> Natasha Primo
> Dawit Bekele
> Ken Lohento
>
> Asia
>
> Adam Peake
> Izumi Aizu
> Y. J. Park
> Iffat Rose Gill
>
> Europe
>
> William Drake
> Vittorio Bertola
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
>
> LAC
>
> Valeria Betancourt
> Graciela Selaimen
>
>
> North America
>
> Robin Gross
> Milton Mueller
> Michael Gurstein
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>   

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

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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Fri Apr 25 02:27:53 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:27:53 -0700
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>

All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William  
Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan  
to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and  
suggestions, on all aspects.

      -- Bret

- - - - - D R A F T - - - - -

1.	Name of proposed workshop
The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme  
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.

The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some  
unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a  
British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,  
selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a  
registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US  
embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark  
case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi  
memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there  
are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,  
cybercrime, and intellectual property.

This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national  
jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple  
normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,  
contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case  
studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various  
approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet  
governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and  
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance  
where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how  
default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives  
can lead to de facto Internet governance.

3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are  
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether  
you have approached them about their willingness to participate in  
proposed workshop.

NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more  
than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.

•	Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The Council of  
Europe
•	Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA
•	Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
•	Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &  
Kneafsey, LLP USA
•	Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
•	William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and Development  
Studies, Switzerland

Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various  
perspectives on specific case studies.

Themes to be discussed by speakers:
•	Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off-line and  
on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II,  
Convention on TV without Frontiers,
•	Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E-commerce  
directive
•	Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and implementation  
activities
•	Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines, blocking  
(cf. Pakistan case)
•	Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements

4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their  
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take  
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical  
diversity and gender balance.

-	The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
-	The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
-	European Digital Rights (Civil society)
-	Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil society)
-	Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)

Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,  
Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,  
OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,  
newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking  
companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.

5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the  
issues under discussion?

Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a  
comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be  
updated later).

6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to  
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the  
Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
The first and foremost need for global Internet governance  
arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the  
Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related  
to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation  
of content and data and to the protection of the general  
communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty  
issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance  
discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations,  
and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative  
methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted  
and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and  
discuss these alternatives.
TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)

7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have  
organized in the past.

The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have  
organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)

8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did  
you submit a workshop report?

Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)

9.	Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?

•	Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
•	Arrangements for Internet governance

- - - - - D R A F T - - - - -

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Apr 25 02:42:44 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:12:44 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <20080425064253.E4A47678A5@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Thanks Bret, and other members of the WG.

This is one of the 4 proposed workshops to be sponsored by the IGC for IGF,
Hyd.

These draft proposals are open for comments till 27th evening. They will be
put for 48 hours consensus process on the 27th night and be submitted by
30th deadline, if adopted. 

The 'rights' and 'post-JPA' proposals are also expected today, anytime now.
On JPA Milton informs me that there isn't much change on the earlier draft
which has been shared here, and whatever changes are there they will be
communicated, hopefully today.

The role and mandate draft may take some time, so I request if anyone has
comments pl submit them right now so that he drafting group can include
them. I expect this workshop proposal especially not to have any real
problem in getting consensus because we organized it last time and there was
some consensus at that time that it should perhaps be an annual affair. We
also suggested it as an agenda item for IGF Hyd in our Feb submission.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett at internet.law.pro]
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:58 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
> 
> All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William
> Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan
> to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and
> suggestions, on all aspects.
> 
>       -- Bret
> 
> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> 
> 1.	Name of proposed workshop
> The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> 2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
> including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
> 
> The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some
> unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a
> British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,
> selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a
> registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US
> embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark
> case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi
> memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there
> are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,
> cybercrime, and intellectual property.
> 
> This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national
> jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple
> normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,
> contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case
> studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various
> approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet
> governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and
> human rights and fundamental freedoms.
> The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance
> where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how
> default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives
> can lead to de facto Internet governance.
> 
> 3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
> planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether
> you have approached them about their willingness to participate in
> proposed workshop.
> 
> NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more
> than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
> 
> .	Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The Council of
> Europe
> .	Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA
> .	Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
> .	Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &
> Kneafsey, LLP USA
> .	Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
> .	William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and Development
> Studies, Switzerland
> 
> Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various
> perspectives on specific case studies.
> 
> Themes to be discussed by speakers:
> .	Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off-line and
> on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II,
> Convention on TV without Frontiers,
> .	Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E-commerce
> directive
> .	Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and implementation
> activities
> .	Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines, blocking
> (cf. Pakistan case)
> .	Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements
> 
> 4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
> affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take
> steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
> diversity and gender balance.
> 
> -	The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
> -	The Council of Europe - TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
> -	European Digital Rights (Civil society)
> -	Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) - TBC (Civil society)
> -	Ian Peter and Associates - TBC (Private sector)
> 
> Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,
> Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,
> OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,
> newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking
> companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
> 
> 5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
> issues under discussion?
> 
> Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a
> comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be
> updated later).
> 
> 6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
> Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the
> Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
> The first and foremost need for global Internet governance
> arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the
> Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related
> to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation
> of content and data and to the protection of the general
> communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty
> issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance
> discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations,
> and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative
> methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted
> and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and
> discuss these alternatives.
> TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
> 
> 7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
> organized in the past.
> 
> The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have
> organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
> 
> 8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
> you submit a workshop report?
> 
> Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
> 
> 9.	Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
> 
> .	Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
> .	Arrangements for Internet governance
> 
> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 04:42:11 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:42:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org> <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <AC5FE215-CDD8-4067-A943-15B8384D5DA0@ras.eu.org>


Le 25 avr. 08 à 08:27, Bret Fausett a écrit :

> All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki,  
> William Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working  
> on. We plan to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input  
> and suggestions, on all aspects.

Thanks Bret for forwarding on our behalf the draft proposal to the  
IGC list. I'd like to add some info on current status:

- The Council of Europe has been invited both as a co-sponsor and as  
a speaker (its Deputy Secretary general). We're still waiting for  
their answer (they know about the 30 April deadline). We consider  
that there are good chances for a positive answer, but who knows..
- KEI/CPTech has also been invited as co-sponsor and speaker (Manon  
Ress or Jamie Love, choice left to them): KEI/CPTech already  
confirmed co-sponsorship and Jamie's participation as speaker
- The workshop format would feature no more than 6 speakers + 1 chair  
+ 1 rapporteur (or 7 speakers + 1 chair), i.e.  maximum 8 persons all  
in all
- We currently are trying to increase the regional diversity of the  
workshop, thus we would very much like suggestions to this end.
- While we're probably fine with current co-sponsorship at this step  
(summary only to be submitted before the 30 April deadline), we would  
obviously welcome before this deadline co-sponsorship from additional  
organizations/constituencies, since this obviously shows early  
interest in having a workshop on this topic held at IGF.

Best,
Meryem

> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>
> 1.	Name of proposed workshop
> The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> 2.	Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme  
> including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>
> The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some  
> unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a  
> British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the  
> Bahamas, selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name  
> impounded by a registrar located in the USA because it appeared to  
> break the US embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point.  
> Another landmark case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing  
> with sale of nazi memorabilia, but but apart from these high  
> profile content cases there are many examples in other areas such  
> as privacy, consumer issues, cybercrime, and intellectual property.
>
> This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing  
> national jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space  
> where multiple normative sources apply, such as political, legal,  
> technical, contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through  
> practical case studies, this workshop will look at the implications  
> of various approaches to resolving these issues and the  
> implications for Internet governance, international law, national  
> sovereignty, democracy, and human rights and fundamental freedoms.
> The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance  
> where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and  
> how default unilateral action in the absence of structural  
> alternatives can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>
> 3.	Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are  
> planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and  
> whether you have approached them about their willingness to  
> participate in proposed workshop.
>
> NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no  
> more than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of  
> speakers.
>
> •	Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The Council of  
> Europe
> •	Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA
> •	Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
> •	Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &  
> Kneafsey, LLP USA
> •	Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
> •	William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and  
> Development Studies, Switzerland
>
> Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various  
> perspectives on specific case studies.
>
> Themes to be discussed by speakers:
> •	Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off-line  
> and on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome  
> II, Convention on TV without Frontiers,
> •	Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E- 
> commerce directive
> •	Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and implementation  
> activities
> •	Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,  
> blocking (cf. Pakistan case)
> •	Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements
>
> 4.	Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their  
> affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will  
> take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle,  
> geographical diversity and gender balance.
>
> -	The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
> -	The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
> -	European Digital Rights (Civil society)
> -	Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil society)
> -	Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
>
> Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,  
> Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g.  
> OSCE, OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP  
> associations, newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/ 
> social networking companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
>
> 5.	Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the  
> issues under discussion?
>
> Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a  
> comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be  
> updated later).
>
> 6.	Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to  
> Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the  
> Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
> The first and foremost need for global Internet governance  
> arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the  
> Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only  
> related to critical Internet resources management, but also to the  
> circulation of content and data and to the protection of the  
> general communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and  
> sovereignty issues are thus at the heart of global Internet  
> governance discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national  
> legislations, and given the issue of the competence of  
> jurisdictions, alternative methods to State regulations are more  
> and more considered, promoted and implemented. It is the very aim  
> of this workshop to explore and discuss these alternatives.
> TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>
> 7.	List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have  
> organized in the past.
>
> The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors  
> have organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated  
> later)
>
> 8.	Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did  
> you submit a workshop report?
>
> Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>
> 9.	Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>
> •	Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
> •	Arrangements for Internet governance
>
> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 04:56:45 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:56:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org>
References: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org>

Hi,

I still understand that the nomcom have felt reluctant on forwarding  
nominations when nominees were not informed on such possibility in  
advance, and I now see that Ian (one of the nomcom's members) has  
confirmed this.
However, after having rechecked the rules for nomcom process details  
(http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html), I've a language  
question: what does mean exactly in English the following sentence:

"6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
their applications and other information"

- candidates will make public their applications and other info if  
they are willing to to so, or
- nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as their  
applications and other information?

This is a serious question, in good faith. I'm used to make my points  
clearly (and if needed bluntly:)), so I never need to use sneaky  
detours and in any case I don't like this..

Thank you very much in advance for the English course (actually, I  
learn a lot on this list from this point of view)
Best,
Meryem

Le 23 avr. 08 à 15:44, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :

> Hi all,
>
> I don't see any need, nor any sound reason, to criticize the nomcom  
> - i.e. its members - in this process.
>
> It has been set up in a hurry, with countless messages from  
> Parminder desperately asking for volunteers. It was even difficult  
> to find a non voting nomcom chair. And my opinion is that the  
> nomcom did a great job, especially under such conditions, to come  
> up with a call for nominees perfectly synthetizing the  
> requirements, following the long and - as usual - heated discussion  
> we had on this list prior to nomcom work.
>
> True the nomcom might have made clear that (self-)nominations  
> should also be sent to the IGC. But, after all, no one from this  
> list reacted on the call for nominees, saying that nominations  
> should be sent to the list. In such conditions, I understand that,  
> most probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations  
> (with names and private details), when nomineeds were not informed  
> on such possibility in advance.
>
> Since we don't have yet the nomcom report, I also hardly understand  
> critics on why people from one region or the other have not been  
> selected, or in less number than others, when we don't know the  
> details on the received nominations (only general statistics have  
> been published).
>
> As regards nominees, we certainly can't expect from people external  
> to IGC to send their (self-)nominations to this list, when they  
> haven't been asked so. However, we could have expected to be  
> informed on (self-)nominations from people active in the IGC, most  
> notably from incumbents, most notably from those incumbents who  
> announced their willingness to be selected again. Apparently, they  
> don't have anything to report to us on their activity in the MAG  
> till now. I regret this.
>
> Furthermore, the nomcom has selected 15 nominees. It has been said  
> that this would give more choice to the selection by UN/ 
> Secretariat. I'm wondering:
>
> (1) if it's wise to give choice to UN/Secretariat - why then  
> undertaking this selection process?
> (2) how many candidates from IGC nominated group we expect to be  
> selected?
> (3) how many CS people we expect to be selected, all in all.
>
> You might have understood at this point that our criticisms should  
> target now is not the nomcom, but:
> - our own choice of selecting our candidates through a nomcom  
> process rather than a voting process
> - our own choice - be it by default - to let the UN/Secretariat  
> pick up who it wants to pick up, rather than having a clear idea in  
> advance on how many candidates we should select, then  select them,  
> and send this list to UN/Secretariat with clear demand that they  
> should be on the MAG.
>
> We should be now busy with workshop proposals, statement for May  
> consultations, and other related issues. But right after this, we  
> should start considering at least changing our charter w.r.t. to  
> selection process, and vote on this changes according to our  
> current charter provisions.
>
> 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 jeanette at wzb.eu  Fri Apr 25 05:17:30 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:17:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org> <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
Message-ID: <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>

Hi, I like and support this proposal. The only aspect I find a bit too 
vague yet concerns the expected outcome. A real added value of exploring 
the implications of the "various approaches to resolving these issues" 
would be the prospect of some recommendations on principles or strategies.
Another point: I would try to go for less people on the panel. The more 
people on the panel, the less time for the audience to raise questions 
and interact with the panel. Its not realistic to restrict panelists to 
presentations of a few minutes only.
jeanette

Bret Fausett wrote:
> All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William 
> Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan to 
> submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and suggestions, on 
> all aspects.
> 
>      -- Bret
> 
> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> 
> 1.    Name of proposed workshop
> The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> 2.    Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme 
> including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
> 
> The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some 
> unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a 
> British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas, 
> selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a 
> registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US embargo 
> against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark case was the 
> French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi memorabilia, but 
> but apart from these high profile content cases there are many examples 
> in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues, cybercrime, and 
> intellectual property.
> 
> This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national 
> jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple 
> normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical, 
> contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case studies, 
> this workshop will look at the implications of various approaches to 
> resolving these issues and the implications for Internet governance, 
> international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and human rights and 
> fundamental freedoms.
> The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance 
> where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how 
> default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives can 
> lead to de facto Internet governance.
> 
> 3.    Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are 
> planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether 
> you have approached them about their willingness to participate in 
> proposed workshop.
> 
> NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more 
> than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
> 
> •    Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The Council of 
> Europe
> •    Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA
> •    Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
> •    Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins & 
> Kneafsey, LLP USA
> •    Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
> •    William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and Development 
> Studies, Switzerland
> 
> Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various perspectives 
> on specific case studies.
> 
> Themes to be discussed by speakers:
> •    Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off-line and 
> on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II, 
> Convention on TV without Frontiers,
> •    Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E-commerce 
> directive
> •    Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and implementation 
> activities
> •    Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines, 
> blocking (cf. Pakistan case)
> •    Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements
> 
> 4.    Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their 
> affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
> steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical 
> diversity and gender balance.
> 
> -    The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
> -    The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
> -    European Digital Rights (Civil society)
> -    Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil society)
> -    Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
> 
> Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA, Netherlands, 
> ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE, OCDE,...), other 
> private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations, newspaper 
> associations, registrars, search engine/social networking companies, 
> ...); other civil society constituencies.
> 
> 5.    Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the 
> issues under discussion?
> 
> Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a 
> comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be 
> updated later).
> 
> 6.    Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to 
> Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the 
> Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
> The first and foremost need for global Internet governance arrangements 
> comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the Internet. Issues 
> with global Internet governance are not only related to critical 
> Internet resources management, but also to the circulation of content 
> and data and to the protection of the general communications 
> infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty issues are thus 
> at the heart of global Internet governance discussions. Given the 
> difficulty to harmonize national legislations, and given the issue of 
> the competence of jurisdictions, alternative methods to State 
> regulations are more and more considered, promoted and implemented. It 
> is the very aim of this workshop to explore and discuss these alternatives.
> TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
> 
> 7.    List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have 
> organized in the past.
> 
> The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have 
> organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
> 
> 8.    Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did 
> you submit a workshop report?
> 
> Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
> 
> 9.    Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
> 
> •    Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
> •    Arrangements for Internet governance
> 
> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 05:30:17 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:30:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] coordinator elections
In-Reply-To: <2C92C4A1-24F6-4A15-B95E-12B6021E7EE8@psg.com>
References: <84198920-191E-47C3-AF5A-92E0C4AD440B@psg.com> <20080424052723.5CED5A6C21@smtp2.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC745@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2C92C4A1-24F6-4A15-B95E-12B6021E7EE8@psg.com>
Message-ID: <D839FC82-99E1-4BD1-BAB4-2651B0312DE0@ras.eu.org>

Hi,

Le 24 avr. 08 à 17:52, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Well i think it is a discussion between two viewpoints on the  
> notion of the IGC and what membership means in the caucus.
[...]
> Though of course this moment may not be the best moment.  [...]

Agree on both assertions.

It's interesting to note, in any case, that this very important issue  
- who is a member sharing the IGC vision and mission asserted in the  
charter, and who is someone interested in general discussions on this  
mailing list, though not sharing these vision and mission - only  
matters, according to our current charter, when electing coordinators  
and, of course, when the charter has to to be accepted at first time  
or later amended.

No doubt that voting on the charter and its amendments is an act that  
should be restricted to membership. However, it's quite noticeable that:
- we do vote on coordinators, while they actually coordinate *all*  
the mailing list activities where members and non members participate  
with no distinction
- we don't vote on IGC candidates  (e.g. to the MAG), while they are  
supposed to represent IGC - thus, IGC members -views, be accountable  
to it/them, etc. [we use nomcom process instead]
- we don't vote on decisions and statements made on behalf of the  
IGC, and we don't even restrict the consensus seeking process to IGC  
membership [we use consensus among all mailing list subscribers instead]

(and I'm too busy/tired to enter into the appeal process at this step..)

I'm thus looking forward to having a more in depth discussion on all  
this after May consultations.

In order to make my position clear, I voted, with regards to the  
charter:
- Nomination to external bodies, like MAG: in favor of voting  
process, against nomcom process
- Appeal team selection: in favor of voting process, against nomcom  
process
- Voting process: in favor of secret ballot, againt the open ballot  
option with specific secret ballots at coordinators discretion
- Charter approval, not including the above 3 options, which were  
subject to a separate ballot: yes

This was in September 2006.

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  Fri Apr 25 05:38:15 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:38:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org> <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro> <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <B7F56020-1A2A-418A-9D6E-4136E04D018B@ras.eu.org>

Hi,


Thanks for these comments. SInce they are general enough to apply to  
any workshop proposal, thus they would also be useful to other IGC  
workshop, I'm adding below some personal thoughts.

Le 25 avr. 08 à 11:17, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi, I like and support this proposal. The only aspect I find a bit  
> too vague yet concerns the expected outcome. A real added value of  
> exploring the implications of the "various approaches to resolving  
> these issues" would be the prospect of some recommendations on  
> principles or strategies.

Indeed, we should make this clearer. We'll discuss inside the working  
group how we could best formulate this. Identifying a rapporteur role  
is probably crucial here, as the rapporteur would exactly does this:  
summarize (hopefully precise) recommendations from speakers and from  
the discussion with the workshop attendees.

> Another point: I would try to go for less people on the panel. The  
> more people on the panel, the less time for the audience to raise  
> questions and interact with the panel. Its not realistic to  
> restrict panelists to presentations of a few minutes only.

Agree, entirely. But always a tricky point.. Should probably be  
linked to the above comment on ability to propose precise  
recommendations.

Meryem

>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>> All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki,  
>> William Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working  
>> on. We plan to submit it by the deadline, but would like your  
>> input and suggestions, on all aspects.
>>      -- Bret
>> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>> 1.    Name of proposed workshop
>> The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>> 2.    Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme  
>> including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>> The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some  
>> unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a  
>> British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the  
>> Bahamas, selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name  
>> impounded by a registrar located in the USA because it appeared to  
>> break the US embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point.  
>> Another landmark case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999  
>> dealing with sale of nazi memorabilia, but but apart from these  
>> high profile content cases there are many examples in other areas  
>> such as privacy, consumer issues, cybercrime, and intellectual  
>> property.
>> This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing  
>> national jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space  
>> where multiple normative sources apply, such as political, legal,  
>> technical, contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through  
>> practical case studies, this workshop will look at the  
>> implications of various approaches to resolving these issues and  
>> the implications for Internet governance, international law,  
>> national sovereignty, democracy, and human rights and fundamental  
>> freedoms.
>> The workshop also explores the implications for Internet  
>> governance where no structures are in place to deal with emerging  
>> issues, and how default unilateral action in the absence of  
>> structural alternatives can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>> 3.    Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are  
>> planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and  
>> whether you have approached them about their willingness to  
>> participate in proposed workshop.
>> NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no  
>> more than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of  
>> speakers.
>> •    Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The  
>> Council of Europe
>> •    Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/ 
>> CPTech, USA
>> •    Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
>> •    Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &  
>> Kneafsey, LLP USA
>> •    Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
>> •    William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and  
>> Development Studies, Switzerland
>> Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various  
>> perspectives on specific case studies.
>> Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>> •    Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off- 
>> line and on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television,  
>> Rome II, Convention on TV without Frontiers,
>> •    Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E- 
>> commerce directive
>> •    Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and  
>> implementation activities
>> •    Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,  
>> blocking (cf. Pakistan case)
>> •    Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental  
>> agreements
>> 4.    Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and  
>> their affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you  
>> will take steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle,  
>> geographical diversity and gender balance.
>> -    The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
>> -    The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
>> -    European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>> -    Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil  
>> society)
>> -    Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
>> Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,  
>> Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g.  
>> OSCE, OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP  
>> associations, newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/ 
>> social networking companies, ...); other civil society  
>> constituencies.
>> 5.    Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on  
>> the issues under discussion?
>> Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a  
>> comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be  
>> updated later).
>> 6.    Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating  
>> to Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with  
>> the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>> The first and foremost need for global Internet governance  
>> arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the  
>> Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only  
>> related to critical Internet resources management, but also to the  
>> circulation of content and data and to the protection of the  
>> general communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and  
>> sovereignty issues are thus at the heart of global Internet  
>> governance discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national  
>> legislations, and given the issue of the competence of  
>> jurisdictions, alternative methods to State regulations are more  
>> and more considered, promoted and implemented. It is the very aim  
>> of this workshop to explore and discuss these alternatives.
>> TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>> 7.    List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you  
>> have organized in the past.
>> The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors  
>> have organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated  
>> later)
>> 8.    Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?  
>> Did you submit a workshop report?
>> Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>> 9.    Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall  
>> under ?
>> •    Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>> •    Arrangements for Internet governance
>> - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Apr 25 05:51:38 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:51:38 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <021d01c8a6b9$fc2c9580$8b00a8c0@IAN>

A quick response -

I didn't even know that website existed or any such rules

I am sure that most (if not all) candidates didn’t either as they were not
referred to at all during the process this year






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: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: 25 April 2008 18:57
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still understand that the nomcom have felt reluctant on forwarding
> nominations when nominees were not informed on such possibility in
> advance, and I now see that Ian (one of the nomcom's members) has
> confirmed this.
> However, after having rechecked the rules for nomcom process details
> (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html), I've a language
> question: what does mean exactly in English the following sentence:
> 
> "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will
> their applications and other information"
> 
> - candidates will make public their applications and other info if
> they are willing to to so, or
> - nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as their
> applications and other information?
> 
> This is a serious question, in good faith. I'm used to make my points
> clearly (and if needed bluntly:)), so I never need to use sneaky
> detours and in any case I don't like this..
> 
> Thank you very much in advance for the English course (actually, I
> learn a lot on this list from this point of view)
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 23 avr. 08 à 15:44, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I don't see any need, nor any sound reason, to criticize the nomcom
> > - i.e. its members - in this process.
> >
> > It has been set up in a hurry, with countless messages from
> > Parminder desperately asking for volunteers. It was even difficult
> > to find a non voting nomcom chair. And my opinion is that the
> > nomcom did a great job, especially under such conditions, to come
> > up with a call for nominees perfectly synthetizing the
> > requirements, following the long and - as usual - heated discussion
> > we had on this list prior to nomcom work.
> >
> > True the nomcom might have made clear that (self-)nominations
> > should also be sent to the IGC. But, after all, no one from this
> > list reacted on the call for nominees, saying that nominations
> > should be sent to the list. In such conditions, I understand that,
> > most probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations
> > (with names and private details), when nomineeds were not informed
> > on such possibility in advance.
> >
> > Since we don't have yet the nomcom report, I also hardly understand
> > critics on why people from one region or the other have not been
> > selected, or in less number than others, when we don't know the
> > details on the received nominations (only general statistics have
> > been published).
> >
> > As regards nominees, we certainly can't expect from people external
> > to IGC to send their (self-)nominations to this list, when they
> > haven't been asked so. However, we could have expected to be
> > informed on (self-)nominations from people active in the IGC, most
> > notably from incumbents, most notably from those incumbents who
> > announced their willingness to be selected again. Apparently, they
> > don't have anything to report to us on their activity in the MAG
> > till now. I regret this.
> >
> > Furthermore, the nomcom has selected 15 nominees. It has been said
> > that this would give more choice to the selection by UN/
> > Secretariat. I'm wondering:
> >
> > (1) if it's wise to give choice to UN/Secretariat - why then
> > undertaking this selection process?
> > (2) how many candidates from IGC nominated group we expect to be
> > selected?
> > (3) how many CS people we expect to be selected, all in all.
> >
> > You might have understood at this point that our criticisms should
> > target now is not the nomcom, but:
> > - our own choice of selecting our candidates through a nomcom
> > process rather than a voting process
> > - our own choice - be it by default - to let the UN/Secretariat
> > pick up who it wants to pick up, rather than having a clear idea in
> > advance on how many candidates we should select, then  select them,
> > and send this list to UN/Secretariat with clear demand that they
> > should be on the MAG.
> >
> > We should be now busy with workshop proposals, statement for May
> > consultations, and other related issues. But right after this, we
> > should start considering at least changing our charter w.r.t. to
> > selection process, and vote on this changes according to our
> > current charter provisions.
> >
> > 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:
> 24/04/2008 07:24
> 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date: 24/04/2008
07:24
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 06:07:40 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:07:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <021d01c8a6b9$fc2c9580$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <021d01c8a6b9$fc2c9580$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <119F3D25-9D63-4420-A1D9-7AB4D9F84F5B@ras.eu.org>

We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)
To start with, we need to have ONE (just one, not three or who knows  
how many) caucus website which URL should be indicated in the list  
signature.
It should contain charter and other information, archives of  
processes (e.g. Avri has now added archives of former MAG candidates  
selection), and archives of all statements and documents (including  
workshop held, reports, etc.) from the caucus. Seems that almost all  
this is already at http://www.igcaucus.org/
I suggest the caucus coordinators regularly check this as part of its  
job, with help of the good souls who volunteer (currently, it's Avri  
only, I think).
Best,
Meryem
PS. I'm still waiting for the English course, even Australian English  
would be welcome:), to understand the precise meaning of the sentence  
("6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
their applications and other information").

Le 25 avr. 08 à 11:51, Ian Peter a écrit :

> A quick response -
>
> I didn't even know that website existed or any such rules
>
> I am sure that most (if not all) candidates didn’t either as they  
> were not
> referred to at all during the process this year
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 18:57
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I still understand that the nomcom have felt reluctant on forwarding
>> nominations when nominees were not informed on such possibility in
>> advance, and I now see that Ian (one of the nomcom's members) has
>> confirmed this.
>> However, after having rechecked the rules for nomcom process details
>> (http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html), I've a language
>> question: what does mean exactly in English the following sentence:
>>
>> "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will
>> their applications and other information"
>>
>> - candidates will make public their applications and other info if
>> they are willing to to so, or
>> - nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as their
>> applications and other information?
>>
>> This is a serious question, in good faith. I'm used to make my points
>> clearly (and if needed bluntly:)), so I never need to use sneaky
>> detours and in any case I don't like this..
>>
>> Thank you very much in advance for the English course (actually, I
>> learn a lot on this list from this point of view)
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 23 avr. 08 à 15:44, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I don't see any need, nor any sound reason, to criticize the nomcom
>>> - i.e. its members - in this process.
>>>
>>> It has been set up in a hurry, with countless messages from
>>> Parminder desperately asking for volunteers. It was even difficult
>>> to find a non voting nomcom chair. And my opinion is that the
>>> nomcom did a great job, especially under such conditions, to come
>>> up with a call for nominees perfectly synthetizing the
>>> requirements, following the long and - as usual - heated discussion
>>> we had on this list prior to nomcom work.
>>>
>>> True the nomcom might have made clear that (self-)nominations
>>> should also be sent to the IGC. But, after all, no one from this
>>> list reacted on the call for nominees, saying that nominations
>>> should be sent to the list. In such conditions, I understand that,
>>> most probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations
>>> (with names and private details), when nomineeds were not informed
>>> on such possibility in advance.
>>>
>>> Since we don't have yet the nomcom report, I also hardly understand
>>> critics on why people from one region or the other have not been
>>> selected, or in less number than others, when we don't know the
>>> details on the received nominations (only general statistics have
>>> been published).
>>>
>>> As regards nominees, we certainly can't expect from people external
>>> to IGC to send their (self-)nominations to this list, when they
>>> haven't been asked so. However, we could have expected to be
>>> informed on (self-)nominations from people active in the IGC, most
>>> notably from incumbents, most notably from those incumbents who
>>> announced their willingness to be selected again. Apparently, they
>>> don't have anything to report to us on their activity in the MAG
>>> till now. I regret this.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, the nomcom has selected 15 nominees. It has been said
>>> that this would give more choice to the selection by UN/
>>> Secretariat. I'm wondering:
>>>
>>> (1) if it's wise to give choice to UN/Secretariat - why then
>>> undertaking this selection process?
>>> (2) how many candidates from IGC nominated group we expect to be
>>> selected?
>>> (3) how many CS people we expect to be selected, all in all.
>>>
>>> You might have understood at this point that our criticisms should
>>> target now is not the nomcom, but:
>>> - our own choice of selecting our candidates through a nomcom
>>> process rather than a voting process
>>> - our own choice - be it by default - to let the UN/Secretariat
>>> pick up who it wants to pick up, rather than having a clear idea in
>>> advance on how many candidates we should select, then  select them,
>>> and send this list to UN/Secretariat with clear demand that they
>>> should be on the MAG.
>>>
>>> We should be now busy with workshop proposals, statement for May
>>> consultations, and other related issues. But right after this, we
>>> should start considering at least changing our charter w.r.t. to
>>> selection process, and vote on this changes according to our
>>> current charter provisions.
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:
>> 24/04/2008 07:24
>>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:  
> 24/04/2008
> 07:24
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Apr 25 06:10:43 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:10:43 +0900
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <B7F56020-1A2A-418A-9D6E-4136E04D018B@ras.eu.org>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
 <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org>
 <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro>
 <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>
 <B7F56020-1A2A-418A-9D6E-4136E04D018B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <p06240801c43758ddc779@[192.168.1.193]>

I'd like to see some development 
angle/perspective included (lack of local 
infrastructure -> use of offshore resources -> 
most vulnerable to foreign law and policy?) Which 
would come back to Bret's original comment when 
the Cuba domain registration problem was 
discussed, that if there was a session in this 
issue then there was a lessons learned angle. 
Perhaps trying to include a web hosting 
service/content provider etc from a developing 
country among the speakers, how do they consider 
this situation?  Overall it relates to access, 
capacity building, market development, all kinds 
of things.

For the April 30 submission, you do not need 
names of speakers (great if you have them or some 
of them), a general idea of who and what 
interests you are seeking to have represented is 
fine. (4. Provide the name of the organizer(s) of 
the workshop and their affiliation to various 
stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder 
principle, geographical diversity and gender 
balance.)

Adam



>Hi,
>
>
>Thanks for these comments. SInce they are 
>general enough to apply to any workshop 
>proposal, thus they would also be useful to 
>other IGC workshop, I'm adding below some 
>personal thoughts.
>
>Le 25 avr. 08 à 11:17, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>
>>Hi, I like and support this proposal. The only 
>>aspect I find a bit too vague yet concerns the 
>>expected outcome. A real added value of 
>>exploring the implications of the "various 
>>approaches to resolving these issues" would be 
>>the prospect of some recommendations on 
>>principles or strategies.
>
>Indeed, we should make this clearer. We'll 
>discuss inside the working group how we could 
>best formulate this. Identifying a rapporteur 
>role is probably crucial here, as the rapporteur 
>would exactly does this: summarize (hopefully 
>precise) recommendations from speakers and from 
>the discussion with the workshop attendees.
>
>>Another point: I would try to go for less 
>>people on the panel. The more people on the 
>>panel, the less time for the audience to raise 
>>questions and interact with the panel. Its not 
>>realistic to restrict panelists to 
>>presentations of a few minutes only.
>
>Agree, entirely. But always a tricky point.. 
>Should probably be linked to the above comment 
>on ability to propose precise recommendations.
>
>Meryem
>
>>
>>Bret Fausett wrote:
>>>All, below is a draft workshop proposal that 
>>>Meryem Marzouki, William Drake, Ian Peter, 
>>>Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We 
>>>plan to submit it by the deadline, but would 
>>>like your input and suggestions, on all 
>>>aspects.
>>>      -- Bret
>>>- - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>>1.    Name of proposed workshop
>>>The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>>>2.    Provide a concise description of the 
>>>proposed workshop theme including its 
>>>importance and relevance to the IGF.
>>>The Internet crosses the boundaries of all 
>>>nations and raises some unique transboundary 
>>>jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a 
>>>British citizen living in Spain, with Internet 
>>>servers in the Bahamas, selling holidays to 
>>>Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by 
>>>a registrar located in the USA because it 
>>>appeared to break the US embargo against Cuba 
>>>is one recent case in point. Another landmark 
>>>case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 
>>>dealing with sale of nazi memorabilia, but but 
>>>apart from these high profile content cases 
>>>there are many examples in other areas such as 
>>>privacy, consumer issues, cybercrime, and 
>>>intellectual property.
>>>This workshop will discuss the many 
>>>implications of competing national 
>>>jurisdictions being projected into a 
>>>globalized space where multiple normative 
>>>sources apply, such as political, legal, 
>>>technical, contractual, and behavioral 
>>>regulations. Through practical case studies, 
>>>this workshop will look at the implications of 
>>>various approaches to resolving these issues 
>>>and the implications for Internet governance, 
>>>international law, national sovereignty, 
>>>democracy, and human rights and fundamental 
>>>freedoms.
>>>The workshop also explores the implications 
>>>for Internet governance where no structures 
>>>are in place to deal with emerging issues, and 
>>>how default unilateral action in the absence 
>>>of structural alternatives can lead to de 
>>>facto Internet governance.
>>>3.    Provide the names and affiliations of 
>>>the panellists you are planning to invite. 
>>>Describe the main actors in the field and 
>>>whether you have approached them about their 
>>>willingness to participate in proposed 
>>>workshop.
>>>NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means 
>>>that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists 
>>>plus chair. This is a tentative list of 
>>>speakers.
>>>€    Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary 
>>>General, The Council of Europe
>>>€    Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA
>>>€    Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
>>>€    Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, 
>>>Cathcart, Collins & Kneafsey, LLP USA
>>>€    Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia
>>>€    William Drake, Graduate Institute of 
>>>International and Development Studies, 
>>>Switzerland
>>>Yet to be approached: other identified experts 
>>>with various perspectives on specific case 
>>>studies.
>>>Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>>>€    Liability and the principle of the 
>>>country of origin (off-line and on-line 
>>>content): Convention on Transfrontier 
>>>television, Rome II, Convention on TV without 
>>>Frontiers,
>>>€    Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: 
>>>Hague Convention, E-commerce directive
>>>€    Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its 
>>>protocols and implementation activities
>>>€    Technical and contractual means: ISP 
>>>charters and hotlines, blocking (cf. Pakistan 
>>>case)
>>>€    Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements
>>>4.    Provide the name of the organizer(s) of 
>>>the workshop and their affiliation to various 
>>>stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
>>>steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder 
>>>principle, geographical diversity and gender 
>>>balance.
>>>-    The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
>>>-    The Council of Europe ­ TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
>>>-    European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>>>-    Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) ­ TBC (Civil society)
>>>-    Ian Peter and Associates ­ TBC (Private sector)
>>>Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. 
>>>France, USA, Netherlands, ...); other 
>>>intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE, 
>>>OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies 
>>>(e.g. ISP associations, newspaper 
>>>associations, registrars, search engine/social 
>>>networking companies, ...); other civil 
>>>society constituencies.
>>>5.    Does the proposed workshop provide 
>>>different perspectives on the issues under 
>>>discussion?
>>>Yes. Expertise is being sought from various 
>>>areas to provide a comprehensive coverage of 
>>>issues and perspectives involved (to be 
>>>updated later).
>>>6.    Please explain how the workshop will 
>>>address issues relating to Internet governance 
>>>and describe how the workshop conforms with 
>>>the Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the 
>>>mandate of the IGF.
>>>The first and foremost need for global 
>>>Internet governance arrangements comes from 
>>>the global, cross-boundaries nature of the 
>>>Internet. Issues with global Internet 
>>>governance are not only related to critical 
>>>Internet resources management, but also to the 
>>>circulation of content and data and to the 
>>>protection of the general communications 
>>>infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and 
>>>sovereignty issues are thus at the heart of 
>>>global Internet governance discussions. Given 
>>>the difficulty to harmonize national 
>>>legislations, and given the issue of the 
>>>competence of jurisdictions, alternative 
>>>methods to State regulations are more and more 
>>>considered, promoted and implemented. It is 
>>>the very aim of this workshop to explore and 
>>>discuss these alternatives.
>>>TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>>>7.    List similar events you and/or any other 
>>>IGF workshops you have organized in the past.
>>>The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus 
>>>and other sponsors have organized workshops at 
>>>previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
>>>8.    Were you part of organizing a workshop 
>>>last year? Which one? Did you submit a 
>>>workshop report?
>>>Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>>>9.    Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>>>€    Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>>>€    Arrangements for Internet governance
>>>- - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Fri Apr 25 06:11:15 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:11:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet Governance
Message-ID: <20080425101145.5C91F405693@mail.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to 
draft a proposal on:

A rights agenda for internet goernance

The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet 
Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin 
Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself. I 
believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or 
rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may 
have made in that list..)

It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise that 
this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF Table - 
but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF Mandate, 
but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the IGF process.

Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments 
in relation to

- the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
- ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
- ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
- your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i 
would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)

we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take 
it from there..

thanks everyone

karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080425/a7f13f40/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGF_RAIG_Final.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 91648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080425/a7f13f40/attachment.obj>
-------------- 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  Fri Apr 25 06:21:56 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:21:56 +1000
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <119F3D25-9D63-4420-A1D9-7AB4D9F84F5B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: 25 April 2008 20:08
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
> 
> We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)

Yes...


Meryem the only link to the page you refer to on the website is this 

Appeals team

An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board
will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as
defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.


There is no other link from the site (or I can't find it, and nor can
Google) The fact that the link then refers to all nomcoms is acknowledged
but anyone looking for a rule which might apply could be forgiven for not
knowing about this.


Congratulations on your detective work, but I would prefer we discuss the
logic of whether names should be released (you would have seen my posting)
rather than rely on a precedent which is problematic.






No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date: 24/04/2008
07:24
 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 06:45:45 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:45:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <C43782F9.112AD%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi,

We have discussed the web site issue off and on for several years.  If we're
going to have a re-do now, for the record, please recall that in addition to
Avri's site http://www.igcaucus.org there is also Adam's old site
http://www.net-gov.org/ which has some (but not all) caucus statements and
such from the WSIS period.  Most of the stuff from the post-WSIS IGF period
is not on either site.  Some day it would make sense to collect and
consolidate IGF material in one place and organize it for easy access.
Unless a masochistic volunteer can be found, perhaps a small grant proposal
to pay someone to do it would be worth pursuing.

Cheers,

Bill

On 4/25/08 12:21 PM, "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:

> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 20:08
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
>> 
>> We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
> Meryem the only link to the page you refer to on the website is this
> 
> Appeals team
> 
> An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board
> will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as
> defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.
> 
> 
> There is no other link from the site (or I can't find it, and nor can
> Google) The fact that the link then refers to all nomcoms is acknowledged
> but anyone looking for a rule which might apply could be forgiven for not
> knowing about this.
> 
> 
> Congratulations on your detective work, but I would prefer we discuss the
> logic of whether names should be released (you would have seen my posting)
> rather than rely on a precedent which is problematic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG. 
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date: 24/04/2008
> 07:24
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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
***********************************************************



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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Apr 25 07:58:30 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <p06240808c4376657f027@[192.168.1.193]>

>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>>  Sent: 25 April 2008 20:08
>>  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
>>
>>  We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)
>
>Yes...
>
>
>Meryem the only link to the page you refer to on the website is this
>
>Appeals team
>
>An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals board
>will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as
>defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.
>


Agree, this process doesn't seem relevant to recommendations for the MAG.

Clearly intended for the appeals team (I can see no reason why a 
member of the appeals team should not also be recommended for the 
MAG), refers to appointments (we don't appoint people to the MAG), 
number of volunteers based on number of positions etc.

MAG positions will rotate each year so we need a new process (in 12 
months time...) and I think Ian's note of couple of days ago is a 
good basis.  Having served on the ICANN nomcom for a few years I 
think Ian's comments were spot on.  Not releasing names of the 
candidate pool is the best approach. If people want to announce they 
are a candidate that's fine.

Adam


>There is no other link from the site (or I can't find it, and nor can
>Google) The fact that the link then refers to all nomcoms is acknowledged
>but anyone looking for a rule which might apply could be forgiven for not
>knowing about this.
>
>
>Congratulations on your detective work, but I would prefer we discuss the
>logic of whether names should be released (you would have seen my posting)
>rather than rely on a precedent which is problematic.
>
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date: 24/04/2008
>07:24
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Apr 25 08:22:07 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:22:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
In-Reply-To: <20080425101145.5C91F405693@mail.gn.apc.org>
References: <20080425101145.5C91F405693@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <p0624080bc43777fb129f@[192.168.1.193]>

Karen, as I mentioned regarding the Transboundary 
Internet workshop, the proposal does not need to 
be complete for April 30.  More compete the form 
the better, so don't stop!  But at this time you 
can make general comments rather than specific. 
You don't need names of all who you want 
involved, just say who you want involved, what 
point of view.

A straightforward description of what the 
workshop will be about and what interests will be 
represented will let us all see what issues 
people think important.  With the proposals and 
any discussion from the open consultation, the 
MAG should be able to start more detailed 
discussion of the programme. We'll all be able to 
see what other's are working on, perhaps join 
them, merge ideas, etc.

There's been a bit of discussion about this on 
the MAG list and it's in the email digests of the 
MAG discussions (which I guess people have 
stopped reading... they are pretty dull.) 
<http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=426.0>

Adam



At 11:11 AM +0100 4/25/08, karen banks wrote:
>Dear all
>
>A working group comprised of the following folk 
>have worked hard to draft a proposal on:
>
>A rights agenda for internet goernance
>
>The working group included : Michael Gurstein, 
>Parminder Jeet Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos 
>Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin Gross, Robert 
>Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and 
>myself. I believe posts were also shared from 
>time to time with the bill or rights coalition. 
>(colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may 
>have made in that list..)
>
>It was a very interesting drafting process, and 
>we fully realise that this is a complex and 
>challenging topic to bring to the IGF Table - 
>but we are convinced that it is not only 
>relevant to the IGF Mandate, but central to the 
>mandate and the long term impact of the IGF 
>process.
>
>Please review the attached draft - we look 
>forward to your comments in relation to
>
>- the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
>- ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
>- ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
>- your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal 
>best fits with - i would say it's an 'missing' 
>crosscut ;)
>
>we'll take a round of comments til end monday 
>(april 28th) and take it from there..
>
>thanks everyone
>
>karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:IGF_RAIG_Final.doc (WDBN/«IC») (00578DF3)
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 08:31:32 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:31:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org>
References: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org> <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <79875AEE-3F30-43B1-A07B-7ED1DBA68830@psg.com>


On 25 Apr 2008, at 04:56, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
> their applications and other information"
>
> - candidates will make public their applications and other info if  
> they are willing to to so, or
> - nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as  
> their applications and other information?


I thought it meant that all information would be made public by the  
nomcom.  i.e. your second interpretation.

what is missing from the statement is when.  does this need to be done  
during the process or as part of the report.


On 25 Apr 2008, at 07:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> Agree, this process doesn't seem relevant to recommendations for the  
> MAG.
>
> Clearly intended for the appeals team (I can see no reason why a  
> member of the appeals team should not also be recommended for the  
> MAG), refers to appointments (we don't appoint people to the MAG),  
> number of volunteers based on number of positions etc.


from http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html

>
>       All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF  
> multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly  
> selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html 
> .
>
>


On 25 Apr 2008, at 06:45, William Drake wrote:
>  If we're
> going to have a re-do now, for the record, please recall that in  
> addition to
> Avri's site http://www.igcaucus.org there is also Adam's old site
> http://www.net-gov.org/ which has some (but not all) caucus  
> statements and
> such from the WSIS period.  Most of the stuff from the post-WSIS IGF  
> period
> is not on either site.  Some day it would make sense to collect and
> consolidate IGF material in one place and organize it for easy access.
> Unless a masochistic volunteer can be found, perhaps a small grant  
> proposal
> to pay someone to do it would be worth pursuing.


As i have said, i will turn of care and feeding of the web site to  
someone else as selected by the coordinators.  i have even given at  
least one of them the password.

as for the current site, i am willing to add anything to it that  
people ask me to add (other then fancy frames and assort of other  
stuff.)  i did try to add a wiki, but got hung up with some system  
problems that i could not work again.  i keep thinking of moving the  
site to another machine but don't  have the resources at the moment to  
do so.  nte: there has been a pointer to Adam;s old site on the  
igcaucus site for quite a while.

if there are any other past sites people want me to point at, they  
just need to send me the information.

i have added a more easily findable pointer to the charter and have  
added a pointer to the nomcom page so people can find it more easily.

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 karenb at gn.apc.org  Fri Apr 25 08:35:18 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:35:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
In-Reply-To: <p0624080bc43777fb129f@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <20080425101145.5C91F405693@mail.gn.apc.org>
 <p0624080bc43777fb129f@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <20080425123556.02C6A4063AF@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi adam

At 13:22 25/04/2008, Adam Peake wrote:
>Karen, as I mentioned regarding the Transboundary Internet workshop, 
>the proposal does not need to be complete for April 30.  More 
>compete the form the better, so don't stop!  But at this time you 
>can make general comments rather than specific. You don't need names 
>of all who you want involved, just say who you want involved, what 
>point of view.

sure

>A straightforward description of what the workshop will be about and 
>what interests will be represented will let us all see what issues 
>people think important.  With the proposals and any discussion from 
>the open consultation, the MAG should be able to start more detailed 
>discussion of the programme. We'll all be able to see what other's 
>are working on, perhaps join them, merge ideas, etc.

the substantive sections are long, it's true.. but i don't want to 
dumb it down too much as i think the text we have there is necessary 
to put forward a case..   we talked about editing down the text - but 
it's not easy - but, could have a go

when you say 'straight forward description' - are you implying that 
the text does not do that? ;)

>There's been a bit of discussion about this on the MAG list and it's 
>in the email digests of the MAG discussions (which I guess people 
>have stopped reading... they are pretty dull.) 
><http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=426.0>

thanks

karen 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080425/e7e4bc84/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  Fri Apr 25 09:59:46 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:59:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <79875AEE-3F30-43B1-A07B-7ED1DBA68830@psg.com>
References: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org>
 <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org>
 <79875AEE-3F30-43B1-A07B-7ED1DBA68830@psg.com>
Message-ID: <p06240811c437930b6a51@[192.168.1.193]>

At 8:31 AM -0400 4/25/08, Avri Doria wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2008, at 04:56, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>"6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will 
>>their applications and other information"
>>
>>- candidates will make public their applications and other info if 
>>they are willing to to so, or
>>- nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as 
>>their applications and other information?
>
>
>I thought it meant that all information would be made public by the 
>nomcom.  i.e. your second interpretation.
>
>what is missing from the statement is when.  does this need to be 
>done during the process or as part of the report.
>


Only the names of the selected nominees and their statements please 
(I have a slight problem with part of my statement, had I been told 
it was public I would have written it slightly differently.  But I'll 
sort that out with the nomcom. Make clear where a change has been 
made or some such.  Only editorial, of a kind.)

One additional concern about candidate's expectation of privacy, 
Robert's email (nomcom chair) has what I think is a standard .sig:

"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."

I know what it says, but it's about the impression it gives.



>On 25 Apr 2008, at 07:58, Adam Peake wrote:
>>Agree, this process doesn't seem relevant to recommendations for the MAG.
>>
>>Clearly intended for the appeals team (I can see no reason why a 
>>member of the appeals team should not also be recommended for the 
>>MAG), refers to appointments (we don't appoint people to the MAG), 
>>number of volunteers based on number of positions etc.
>
>
>from http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html
>
>>
>>       All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF 
>>multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly 
>>selected nomcom process as defined in 
>>http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.
>>



So we should be using that process for the MAG.  That's a shame.

As soon as we have a voting membership (apologies for mentioning that 
again :-)  I think we need to re-write a lot of stuff.  But not now, 
May consultations first.



>
>
>On 25 Apr 2008, at 06:45, William Drake wrote:
>>  If we're
>>going to have a re-do now, for the record, please recall that in addition to
>>Avri's site http://www.igcaucus.org there is also Adam's old site
>>http://www.net-gov.org/ which has some (but not all) caucus statements and
>>such from the WSIS period.  Most of the stuff from the post-WSIS IGF period
>>is not on either site.  Some day it would make sense to collect and
>>consolidate IGF material in one place and organize it for easy access.
>>Unless a masochistic volunteer can be found, perhaps a small grant proposal
>>to pay someone to do it would be worth pursuing.
>
>
>As i have said, i will turn of care and feeding of the web site to 
>someone else as selected by the coordinators.  i have even given at 
>least one of them the password.
>
>as for the current site, i am willing to add anything to it that 
>people ask me to add (other then fancy frames and assort of other 
>stuff.)  i did try to add a wiki, but got hung up with some system 
>problems that i could not work again.  i keep thinking of moving the 
>site to another machine but don't  have the resources at the moment 
>to do so.  nte: there has been a pointer to Adam;s old site


Better to call it Vittorio's site, he maintains it.  I just pay for the name.

Adam



>on the igcaucus site for quite a while.
>
>if there are any other past sites people want me to point at, they 
>just need to send me the information.
>
>i have added a more easily findable pointer to the charter and have 
>added a pointer to the nomcom page so people can find it more easily.
>
>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 qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw  Fri Apr 25 10:02:21 2008
From: qshatti at safat.kisr.edu.kw (Qusai Al-Shatti)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:02:21 -0000
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
Message-ID: <200804251402.OAA29584@safat.kisr.edu.kw>

Dear All:
I think according to the charter, The last point under the working method heading states:
" All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html."

The "nomcom-process.html" states the following in the first prargraph:
" In an effort to foster full inclusion in the process of selecting the appeals board and any other appointments the IGC may make other then the election of coordinators, a nominating committee process will be used. A nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at random according to the process documented in RFC3797."

In the same page (nomcom-process.html), point 6 under the heading "NomCom Process Details" states:
"6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their applications and other information"

It means that to comply with the IGC charter nomcom process, the candidates details and information should be made public to the caucus members (this not limited to the appeals committe process only). During the last nomination process in 2006, the nomcom complied with this point and actually published the candidates details immediately after the nomination deadline. This time, the nomcom unitl now did not comply with this point. 

So I would say that for the sake of complying with the charter and having a valid nomination process, candidates details should be made public accordingly.

Again thanks for the nomcom members for their time and effort and congratulations for all my colleagues in the IGC who were selected by the nomcom wishing that the civil society representation will increase in the next advisory group.

Regards,

Qusai Al-Shatti




 --- Message Header --- 

The following message was sent by Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:31:32 -0400.

 --- Original Message --- 

> 
> On 25 Apr 2008, at 04:56, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> > "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
> > their applications and other information"
> >
> > - candidates will make public their applications and other info if  
> > they are willing to to so, or
> > - nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as  
> > their applications and other information?
> 
> 
> I thought it meant that all information would be made public by the  
> nomcom.  i.e. your second interpretation.
> 
> what is missing from the statement is when.  does this need to be done  
> during the process or as part of the report.
> 
> 
> On 25 Apr 2008, at 07:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> > Agree, this process doesn't seem relevant to recommendations for the  
> > MAG.
> >
> > Clearly intended for the appeals team (I can see no reason why a  
> > member of the appeals team should not also be recommended for the  
> > MAG), refers to appointments (we don't appoint people to the MAG),  
> > number of volunteers based on number of positions etc.
> 
> 
> from http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html
> 
> >
> >       All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF  
> > multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly  
> > selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html 
> > .
> >
> >
> 
> 
> On 25 Apr 2008, at 06:45, William Drake wrote:
> >  If we're
> > going to have a re-do now, for the record, please recall that in  
> > addition to
> > Avri's site http://www.igcaucus.org there is also Adam's old site
> > http://www.net-gov.org/ which has some (but not all) caucus  
> > statements and
> > such from the WSIS period.  Most of the stuff from the post-WSIS IGF  
> > period
> > is not on either site.  Some day it would make sense to collect and
> > consolidate IGF material in one place and organize it for easy access.
> > Unless a masochistic volunteer can be found, perhaps a small grant  
> > proposal
> > to pay someone to do it would be worth pursuing.
> 
> 
> As i have said, i will turn of care and feeding of the web site to  
> someone else as selected by the coordinators.  i have even given at  
> least one of them the password.
> 
> as for the current site, i am willing to add anything to it that  
> people ask me to add (other then fancy frames and assort of other  
> stuff.)  i did try to add a wiki, but got hung up with some system  
> problems that i could not work again.  i keep thinking of moving the  
> site to another machine but don't  have the resources at the moment to  
> do so.  nte: there has been a pointer to Adam;s old site on the  
> igcaucus site for quite a while.
> 
> if there are any other past sites people want me to point at, they  
> just need to send me the information.
> 
> i have added a more easily findable pointer to the charter and have  
> added a pointer to the nomcom page so people can find it more easily.
> 
> 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
> 

> On 25 Apr 2008, at 04:56, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> > "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will  
> > their applications and other information"
> >
> > - candidates will make public their applications and other info if  
> > they are willing to to so, or
> > - nomcom have to make public the list of candidates, as well as  
> > their applications and other information?
> 
> 
> I thought it meant that all information would be made public by the  
> nomcom.  i.e. your second interpretation.
> 
> what is missing from the statement is when.  does this need to be done  
> during the process or as part of the report.
> 
> 
> On 25 Apr 2008, at 07:58, Adam Peake wrote:
> > Agree, this process doesn't seem relevant to recommendations for the  
> > MAG.
> >
> > Clearly intended for the appeals team (I can see no reason why a  
> > member of the appeals team should not also be recommended for the  
> > MAG), refers to appointments (we don't appoint people to the MAG),  
> > number of volunteers based on number of positions etc.
> 
> 
> from http://www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html
> 
> >
> >       All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF  
> > multistakholder advisory group, will be made using a randomly  
> > selected nomcom process as defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html 
> > .
> >
> >
> 
> 
> On 25 Apr 2008, at 06:45, William Drake wrote:
> >  If we're
> > going to have a re-do now, for the record, please recall that in  
> > addition to
> > Avri's site http://www.igcaucus.org there is also Adam's old site
> > http://www.net-gov.org/ which has some (but not all) caucus  
> > statements and
> > such from the WSIS period.  Most of the stuff from the post-WSIS IGF  
> > period
> > is not on either site.  Some day it would make sense to collect and
> > consolidate IGF material in one place and organize it for easy access.
> > Unless a masochistic volunteer can be found, perhaps a small grant  
> > proposal
> > to pay someone to do it would be worth pursuing.
> 
> 
> As i have said, i will turn of care and feeding of the web site to  
> someone else as selected by the coordinators.  i have even given at  
> least one of them the password.
> 
> as for the current site, i am willing to add anything to it that  
> people ask me to add (other then fancy frames and assort of other  
> stuff.)  i did try to add a wiki, but got hung up with some system  
> problems that i could not work again.  i keep thinking of moving the  
> site to another machine but don't  have the resources at the moment to  
> do so.  nte: there has been a pointer to Adam;s old site on the  
> igcaucus site for quite a while.
> 
> if there are any other past sites people want me to point at, they  
> just need to send me the information.
> 
> i have added a more easily findable pointer to the charter and have  
> added a pointer to the nomcom page so people can find it more easily.
> 
> 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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Fri Apr 25 10:20:12 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:20:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <200804251402.OAA29584@safat.kisr.edu.kw>
References: <200804251402.OAA29584@safat.kisr.edu.kw>
Message-ID: <2161.41.208.139.205.1209133212.squirrel@webmail.rekcah.fr>

I agree with what Qusai said below.

Regarding my personal statement, no problem of course to send it to the
list. But I think, as one colleague send in a private exchange, that
sending all statements on the list would be like a spam. One of the nomcom
mails  had already indicated that they would include at least I think
nominees statements in the report, so personally I thought it's not really
useful that each person send his statement on the list.

Regards

KL

> Dear All:
> I think according to the charter, The last point under the working method
> heading states:
> " All nominations to external bodies, e.g., the IGF multistakholder
> advisory group, will be made using a randomly selected nomcom process as
> defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html."
>
> The "nomcom-process.html" states the following in the first prargraph:
> " In an effort to foster full inclusion in the process of selecting the
> appeals board and any other appointments the IGC may make other then the
> election of coordinators, a nominating committee process will be used. A
> nominating committee will be composed of 5 IGC members selected at random
> according to the process documented in RFC3797."
>
> In the same page (nomcom-process.html), point 6 under the heading "NomCom
> Process Details" states:
> "6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will their
> applications and other information"
>
> It means that to comply with the IGC charter nomcom process, the
> candidates details and information should be made public to the caucus
> members (this not limited to the appeals committe process only). During
> the last nomination process in 2006, the nomcom complied with this point
> and actually published the candidates details immediately after the
> nomination deadline. This time, the nomcom unitl now did not comply with
> this point.
>
> So I would say that for the sake of complying with the charter and having
> a valid nomination process, candidates details should be made public
> accordingly.
>
> Again thanks for the nomcom members for their time and effort and
> congratulations for all my colleagues in the IGC who were selected by the
> nomcom wishing that the civil society representation will increase in the
> next advisory group.
>
> Regards,
>
> Qusai Al-Shatti


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 10:34:16 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:34:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <p06240811c437930b6a51@[192.168.1.193]>
References: <2B915F7E-9D45-498D-BCA4-EFC1165442FD@ras.eu.org> <BDFB8BA9-6615-431A-A798-ECEE50C6820F@ras.eu.org> <79875AEE-3F30-43B1-A07B-7ED1DBA68830@psg.com> <p06240811c437930b6a51@[192.168.1.193]>
Message-ID: <8C9F1471-C4B9-4737-84FB-E733A5293677@psg.com>


On 25 Apr 2008, at 09:59, Adam Peake wrote:

>
> So we should be using that process for the MAG.  That's a shame.

not sure why.  i think it work well.  and it was a decision made  
during the organizational period.

of course we can change it, though i, for one, am not convinced it  
needs to be changed


>
>
> As soon as we have a voting membership (apologies for mentioning  
> that again :-)  I think we need to re-write a lot of stuff.  But not  
> now, May consultations first.

that was always the plan.  after we gained experience then we could  
change any of it.  though in my opinion the nomcom processes have  
worked well.  and except that in this case the processes we had  
decided on weren't referenced and that is, at least partly, my fault  
for not having made sure that the web site pointed to them clearly.   
it is obviously wrong to assume that people should review the charter  
before engaging in any caucus official activities.

>
>

>
> Better to call it Vittorio's site, he maintains it.  I just pay for  
> the name.

that helps.

i thought there was another site i was missing a pointer to.

btw, i think of www.igcaucus.org as the igc caucus's site - though i  
pay for the name.

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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Fri Apr 25 13:08:07 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:08:07 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <022401c8a6be$38f81a80$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <246844C7-39C0-4139-A6B9-0917238C451F@ras.eu.org>

The link is provided in the charter (which itself is at: http:// 
www.igcaucus.org/IGC-charter_final-061014.html). That's were I've  
found it.

But on the main issue, it's neither a detective work, nor a willing  
to criticize this nomcom work, as I've made it clear myself even  
before you post your message on releasing or not names. It's about  
respecting our agreed processes (although I'm still looking for what  
the sentence means exactly, since this is determinant on whether the  
names and applications MUST be released or COULD be released).

Now if you're asking for my own position in our current situation,  
here it is: since the process has not been made clear in advance,  
neither to the candidates, nor to the nomcom members themselves - and  
this is our collective fault - then I can only repeat what I already  
said, for what it's worth: "In such conditions, I understand that,  
most probably, the nomcom felt reluctant on forwarding nominations  
(with names and private details), when nominees were not informed on  
such possibility in advance."

The best would be to restart the process (with same nomcom), with  
prior announcement of the nominees. I don't remember what is the  
deadline for MAG candidates selection. Thus I'm not sure we have time  
to restart the process or to appeal its decision, on a procedural  
matter basis (I'm not even sure a nomcom decision can be appealed,  
actually). Again, we should be better organized..

Meryem


Le 25 avr. 08 à 12:21, Ian Peter a écrit :

>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
>> Sent: 25 April 2008 20:08
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
>>
>> We definitely need to better organize ourselves:)
>
> Yes...
>
> Meryem the only link to the page you refer to on the website is this
>
> Appeals team
>
> An appeals team of five (5) IGC members will be formed. The appeals  
> board
> will be selected yearly by a randomly selected nominating committee as
> defined in http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process.html.
>
>
> There is no other link from the site (or I can't find it, and nor can
> Google) The fact that the link then refers to all nomcoms is  
> acknowledged
> but anyone looking for a rule which might apply could be forgiven  
> for not
> knowing about this.
>
>
> Congratulations on your detective work, but I would prefer we  
> discuss the
> logic of whether names should be released (you would have seen my  
> posting)
> rather than rely on a precedent which is problematic.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1395 - Release Date:  
> 24/04/2008
> 07:24
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 25 13:29:41 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:29:41 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
<snip>
>
>  I do have another comment, as an IGC member: what you're proposing is a
> perfect topic to be submitted as an IGF workshop proposal. Actually, we
> discussed in early February the need for exploring the oversight of all
> these organizations' activities


Seems a bit hubristic to me.

 (the discussion was a follow-up on an IGP
> paper on ICANN oversight, if I well remember), and making an IGC statement
> on this issue at IGF February consultation was even proposed (by myself).
> But, as usual, the discussion got quickly lost through dilution..
>
>  I see two possible ways to propose a workshop on this:
>  - Either by extending the scope of the workshop IGP intends to propose with
> IGC co-sponsorship (currently: 'The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?'),
> subject to IGP agreement, of course
>  - Or by making it the enlarged focus of the v2.0 IGC workshop on 'Role and
> mandate of the IGF', i.e. it would be this year on 'Governance and enhanced
> cooperation: role and mandate of involved UN institutions' or 'UN post-WSIS
> activities: role and mandate of involved institutions'.
>
>  Finally, as Parminder recently reminded in his summary of ongoing IGC
> activities, there will be a letter sent by IGC to UN under Secretary general
> with regards to UN activities on enhanced cooperation, inter alia referring
> to his letter sent to ISOC on this matter. And we have made clear in our
> analysis of the situation that there was no reason for the IGC receiving
> such a letter from the UN under Secretary general.

I think you meant "no reason for the IGC NOT receiving".

If that's the case, can you tell me why the IGC should get such a
letter?  After all, we're not an "organization responsible for
essential tasks associated with the Internet".

If I were the UN person this task fell to (no one seriously believes
the SG himself will spend any cycles on this issue, do we?),  I
wouldn't write a letter to the IGC either.

BTW, here is another example of EC that I have stumbled upon:

http://www.nro.net/archive/news/nro-icann-reaffirm.html

"NRO and ICANN Reaffirm Commitment to Relationship
8 January 2008

In December 2007, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) exchanged
letters reaffirming their commitment to formalizing the legal
relationship between the two organizations. The NRO letter,
jointly-signed by the executives of the five Regional Internet
Registries, stated the NRO's commitment to supporting ICANN, sought
ICANN's acknowledgement of certain aspects of the role of the NRO, and
committed to a deadline of one (1) year for formalizing the legal
arrangements between the two organizations.

In the letter sent by ICANN to the NRO, Dr. Paul Twomey, President/CEO
of ICANN, identified ICANN's commitments to the NRO and
re-acknowledged the roles of the Address Supporting Organization
(ASO), the NRO, and the RIRs as described in the ASO Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU). Dr. Twomey also committed ICANN to working with
the NRO to finalize the legal arrangements between the two
organizations within the one year timeframe."

I've also just rec'd the draft agenda for the RIPE community Enhanced
Cooperation Task Force meeting.

Can you still say "nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at
least, as far as we know from publicly available information)"?  It's
all publicly available, if you care to look!

-- 
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  Fri Apr 25 13:56:48 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:26:48 +0530
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net>	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	 <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005301c8a6fd$bd7f9190$387eb4b0$@net>

McTim wrote:
 
> If that's the case, can you tell me why the IGC should get such a
> letter?  After all, we're not an "organization responsible for
> essential tasks associated with the Internet".
> 
> If I were the UN person this task fell to (no one seriously believes
> the SG himself will spend any cycles on this issue, do we?),  I
> wouldn't write a letter to the IGC either.

So, whether or not IGC or IGP propose this, it is still moot. Yet another
IGF panel. Great.  Something on the lines of a tree falling in the woods.

Given that, those that would like to talk about it can go right ahead

Those who actually do something about it would turn up at the forums where
the real work is being done (and you did post one or two links), and
contribute, for a change.

Claiming a right to governance and EC, without deigning to be aware of, or
participating in existing EC processes, is not something that is going to be
productive in any way.

Some of the people here do participate. Various others prefer not to. Which
doesn't help

Carry on hoping. That the IGF will actually do something useful beyond
putting multiple groups in the same room and able to actually work together
on on the ground projects rather than uselessly debate policies, rehashing
the same arguments that have been around for the past several years, not
many of which are likely to fly at all. 

And perhaps carry on hoping that Clinton / Obama / McCain instead of Bush
will mean NTIA/DoC will suddenly cede control to civil society, or to a UN
agency, or to a multistakeholder international group ..

Come to think of it, I know at least one fellow traveler on the IG scene
(high level govt apparatchik), who described the IGF (sometime between
Athens and Rio) as "a nice little talk shop.. we'll go, enjoy the beaches in
Rio, talk, talk and talk some more, and then back to business as usual".  He
may well be wrong, and for your sake, I pray that he was wrong.

But, if you don't engage with the right groups, in the right forums, I will
find myself having to agree with the man.

	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 mueller at syr.edu  Fri Apr 25 16:12:02 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:12:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC778@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we
are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list. 

1. Name of proposed workshop  
The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What? 
  
2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF. 

ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government through a
Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
"political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
committed to "completing the transition" to private sector coordination
of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by some
stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
accountability without some kind of governmental oversight. 

This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration of
whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if so
what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it. Panelists
will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to make
changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status quo
will also be represented.  
  
3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning
to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
workshop.  
 

ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush 

IGP: Milton Mueller 

Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
International Institute for 

Government of Canada

Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member

Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)

<civil society representative selected by IGC>

Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour

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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Fri Apr 25 17:58:23 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 23:58:23 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org> <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <737F147F-7710-4B01-9180-9BFEEFB5CBA3@ras.eu.org>


Le 25 avr. 08 à 19:29, McTim a écrit :

> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Meryem Marzouki  
> <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
>> Dear Wolfgang,
> <snip>
>>
>>  I do have another comment, as an IGC member: what you're  
>> proposing is a
>> perfect topic to be submitted as an IGF workshop proposal.  
>> Actually, we
>> discussed in early February the need for exploring the oversight  
>> of all
>> these organizations' activities
>
>
> Seems a bit hubristic to me.

Hubristic? Why would it be hubristic to explore if there is any  
oversight, if there should be any, and if so, what form it should  
take, etc. ?

>>
>>  Finally, as Parminder recently reminded in his summary of ongoing  
>> IGC
>> activities, there will be a letter sent by IGC to UN under  
>> Secretary general
>> with regards to UN activities on enhanced cooperation, inter alia  
>> referring
>> to his letter sent to ISOC on this matter. And we have made clear  
>> in our
>> analysis of the situation that there was no reason for the IGC  
>> receiving
>> such a letter from the UN under Secretary general.
>
> I think you meant "no reason for the IGC NOT receiving".

No (sorry for the frustration). Wondering what makes you think so..  
Just in case, I'm reproducing below a former mail from me on this.

Best,
Meryem

Début du message réexpédié :
> De : Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
> Date : 12 avril 2008 19:56:31 HAEC
> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Objet : Rép : [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
> Répondre à : governance at lists.cpsr.org,Meryem Marzouki  
> <marzouki at 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.


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

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


From bfausett at internet.law.pro  Sat Apr 26 01:27:19 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:27:19 -0700
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
In-Reply-To: <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>
References: <010c01c8a49c$e53a3630$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln> <59573387-89CC-4D49-A15A-8E04544FDC5F@ras.eu.org> <7DF78634-C949-4CCA-8578-A66E8CF87568@internet.law.pro> <4811A1AA.7070202@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <5800DEE8-9777-4FCC-B5A6-C9598029C04B@internet.law.pro>

Thanks, Jeanette. One outcome that I want to see us user education. I  
don't think we're going to change government behavior, but we can  
teach users to avoid or mitigate the worst effects of government  
behavior. For example, many people do not understand the various  
pieces of the infrastructure that support their Internet presence, and  
education can help them route around the problem areas; people outside  
the U.S. who want to do business with Cubans may find powerful reasons  
in U.S. law to avoid U.S.-based registries, registrars and hosting  
companies. From my perspective, explaining the issue takes us most of  
the way in educating users about how to protect themselves.

On the length, I quite agree with you. We may find the topic now is  
very broad with too many speakers, and that's one of the things we'll  
look at. If you have any ideas about how to pare this down, feel free  
to drop me a note off list.

      Bret

On Apr 25, 2008, at 2:17 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Hi, I like and support this proposal. The only aspect I find a bit  
> too vague yet concerns the expected outcome. A real added value of  
> exploring the implications of the "various approaches to resolving  
> these issues" would be the prospect of some recommendations on  
> principles or strategies.
> Another point: I would try to go for less people on the panel. The  
> more people on the panel, the less time for the audience to raise  
> questions and interact with the panel. Its not realistic to restrict  
> panelists to presentations of a few minutes only.

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 26 10:11:03 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:11:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <119F3D25-9D63-4420-A1D9-7AB4D9F84F5B@ras.eu.org>
References: <021d01c8a6b9$fc2c9580$8b00a8c0@IAN> <119F3D25-9D63-4420-A1D9-7AB4D9F84F5B@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2FA7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

I can help with this:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> PS. I'm still waiting for the English course, even Australian English
> would be welcome:), to understand the precise meaning of the sentence
> ("6. All candidates reviewed by nomcom will be made public as will
> their applications and other information").

This means that the names of all candidates reviewed by nomcom will be
made public along with their application materials. 

I am not sure what "and other information" means, though. It is not an
English language issue, more like bad phrasing.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 26 10:41:29 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:41:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGC nomcom process and results
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2FA7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <021d01c8a6b9$fc2c9580$8b00a8c0@IAN> <119F3D25-9D63-4420-A1D9-7AB4D9F84F5B@ras.eu.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9019E2FA7@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B1916E9A-B0E9-4BE0-8E8C-A82A98292BC2@psg.com>


On 26 Apr 2008, at 10:11, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> I am not sure what "and other information" means, though. It is not an
> English language issue, more like bad phrasing.
>


i think it was meant to include any recommendations or endorsement or  
whatever that were received by the nomcom would also be published.

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  Sat Apr 26 11:55:29 2008
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:55:29 +0300
Subject: AW: [governance] enhanced cooperation
In-Reply-To: <737F147F-7710-4B01-9180-9BFEEFB5CBA3@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080419161154.1002FE13AF@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425C7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	 <170589AB-6298-4D0B-8EF2-29744F4130C0@ras.eu.org>
	 <f65fb55e0804251029t5a538135wa7e31023b4ec1a2a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <737F147F-7710-4B01-9180-9BFEEFB5CBA3@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0804260855j3ef96811s661d895c2d6f1394@mail.gmail.com>

<haiku warning>

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > Seems a bit hubristic to me.
> >
>
>  Hubristic? Why would it be hubristic to explore if there is any oversight,
> if there should be any, and if so, what form it should take, etc. ?

Paragraph 77
Who we to have oversight
witness our drama


> >
> > >
> > >  Finally, as Parminder recently reminded in his summary of ongoing IGC
> > > activities, there will be a letter sent by IGC to UN under Secretary
> general
> > > with regards to UN activities on enhanced cooperation, inter alia
> referring
> > > to his letter sent to ISOC on this matter. And we have made clear in our
> > > analysis of the situation that there was no reason for the IGC receiving
> > > such a letter from the UN under Secretary general.
> > >
> >
> > I think you meant "no reason for the IGC NOT receiving".
> >
>
>  No (sorry for the frustration). Wondering what makes you think so.. Just in
> case, I'm reproducing below a former mail from me on this.

Wanting oversight.
A seat at table you want?
Must chop down tree first

</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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Sun Apr 27 07:18:37 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:18:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
Message-ID: <2510CCB1-4EE0-4A4F-A7E8-FE6CE67B0F47@Malcolm.id.au>

A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin  
Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a  
proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the  
IGF".

Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider  
this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is  
presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the  
caucus is required before 30 April.

Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as  
possible.  Thank you!

--- begins ---

Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'

Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The  
role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first  
workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php? 
mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self- 
appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic  
review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).  
Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same  
title during IGF, Hyderabad.

The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in  
general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,  
particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the  
conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this  
general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward  
and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe  
that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked  
or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the  
contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of  
those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion  
into something more.

Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year  
term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be  
reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to

(1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA  
mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are  
needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate

(2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for  
the IGF, if one is at all needed.

There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and  
substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include  
topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more  
focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for  
Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of  
the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.  
Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it  
will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond  
the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring  
IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will  
inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and  
working group working on important issues contributing to the  
proceedings of the annual event.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 27 08:33:49 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:03:49 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <E1Jq5MC-000246-I5@shire.symonds.net>
Message-ID: <20080427123433.23B06E3059@smtp3.electricembers.net>


If the concerted WG is going to change the proposal incorporating any
comments made on the list, pl send it to me by 6 PM GMT tomorrow. I know
that’s bit tight, but we don’t have any option here. I think except for the
role and mandate workshop the WGs can do the finalization right away (if any
changes are to be made). Thanks. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 5:13 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the
> IGF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Jeremy.
> 
> This and the 3 other proposals as presented to the IGC are open for
> comments. (Emails with proposals are enclosed). We will need to close
> comment in exactly 24 hours from now to put them for a 48 hours consensus
> process.
> 
> Issues about speakers, co-sponsors etc can still be sorted out after 30th
> and information added to the proposal. Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> > Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:49 PM
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
> >
> > A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin
> > Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a
> > proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the
> > IGF".
> >
> > Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider
> > this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is
> > presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the
> > caucus is required before 30 April.
> >
> > Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
> > possible.  Thank you!
> >
> > --- begins ---
> >
> > Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
> >
> > Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The
> > role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
> > workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
> > mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
> > appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic
> > review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
> > Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same
> > title during IGF, Hyderabad.
> >
> > The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in
> > general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
> > particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the
> > conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this
> > general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward
> > and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe
> > that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked
> > or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the
> > contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of
> > those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion
> > into something more.
> >
> > Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year
> > term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
> > reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
> >
> > (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
> > mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are
> > needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
> >
> > (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for
> > the IGF, if one is at all needed.
> >
> > There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
> > substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include
> > topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more
> > focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for
> > Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of
> > the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.
> > Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it
> > will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond
> > the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring
> > IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will
> > inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and
> > working group working on important issues contributing to the
> > proceedings of the annual event.
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 27 07:43:02 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:13:02 +0530
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
In-Reply-To: <2510CCB1-4EE0-4A4F-A7E8-FE6CE67B0F47@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <20080427114756.726F267AD2@smtp1.electricembers.net>





Thanks Jeremy. 

This and the 3 other proposals as presented to the IGC are open for
comments. (Emails with proposals are enclosed). We will need to close
comment in exactly 24 hours from now to put them for a 48 hours consensus
process. 

Issues about speakers, co-sponsors etc can still be sorted out after 30th
and information added to the proposal. Parminder 

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 4:49 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
> 
> A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin
> Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a
> proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the
> IGF".
> 
> Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider
> this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is
> presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the
> caucus is required before 30 April.
> 
> Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
> possible.  Thank you!
> 
> --- begins ---
> 
> Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
> 
> Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The
> role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
> workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
> mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
> appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic
> review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
> Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same
> title during IGF, Hyderabad.
> 
> The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in
> general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
> particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the
> conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this
> general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward
> and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe
> that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked
> or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the
> contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of
> those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion
> into something more.
> 
> Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year
> term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
> reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
> 
> (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
> mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are
> needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
> 
> (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for
> the IGF, if one is at all needed.
> 
> There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
> substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include
> topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more
> focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for
> Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of
> the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.
> Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it
> will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond
> the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring
> IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will
> inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and
> working group working on important issues contributing to the
> proceedings of the annual event.
> 
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
Size: 20263
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080427/b8c0209e/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
Size: 9336
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080427/b8c0209e/attachment-0001.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet Governance
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
Size: 129735
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080427/b8c0209e/attachment-0002.eml>

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Sun Apr 27 11:35:09 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 08:35:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor Interview -
 Polysci
Message-ID: <sympa.1209310318.89395.519@lists.cpsr.org>

U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor Interview - F.Y.I.

PBS: Bill Moyers / Rev Jeremiah Wright Interview
with Barack Obama's Pastor

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

-

Worth watching if You'er into U.S. Polysci

-30-
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 27 11:36:38 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:06:38 +0530
Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor Interview -
 Polysci
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1209310318.89395.519@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1209310318.89395.519@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <003901c8a87c$7d1e06b0$775a1410$@net>

At least its not slanted as much as it would be on fox news

And what does this have to do with igov?  It wont matter if its obama, Hilary or mccain.. you're not going to see the JPA annulled, DoC giving up its oversight to a self formed coalition of civil society etc etc.

Have fun

	srs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:05 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor Interview -
> Polysci
> 
> U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor Interview - F.Y.I.
> 
> PBS: Bill Moyers / Rev Jeremiah Wright Interview
> with Barack Obama's Pastor
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
> 
> -
> 
> Worth watching if You'er into U.S. Polysci
> 
> -30-
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Sun Apr 27 12:22:42 2008
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor
In-Reply-To: 003901c8a87c$7d1e06b0$775a1410$@net
Message-ID: <sympa.1209312974.89795.925@lists.cpsr.org>

>And what does this have to do with igov?
>It wont matter if its obama, hilary or mccain..
>you're not going to see the JPA annulled,
>DoC giving up its oversight to a self formed
>coalition of civil society etc etc.


What does it have to do with IG ...

Well if you don't belive that Racism is Alive-and-Well on the Internet and its
global infrastructure, and that those whom are choosen to leed IG 'do-not' come
along with socio-economic-hyper-ethno-centric baggage, and that their
occupation of such positions are judically color-blind under their Robes. ...
If you truly belive that, then I guess your right. 

I don't, and as Icann go forward with its plans (be them as they materialise)
of auctioning TLDs et. al. their programs, you may see:
Dot.Baptist
Dot.Jewish
Dot.Christian
Dot.Catholic
Dot.Protistent
Dot.Hundu
Dot.Muslim
Dot.Budist
Dot.Detity
Dot.White
Dot.Black
Dot.hyper-ethno-centric-socio-poly-economic-coaltion(s)
etc...

Here's a few topic for the IGF workshops:
IGC workshop: A religious agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A racial agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A socio-poly-economic agenda for Internet.

Like it or not, IG will have to touch these issues in one form or another,
IG will effect these issues in one form or another.

It would be quite unfortunate for this list to be used solely for IG
discussions of Commerce and Technical issues. (That's called Icann's: ALAC)

The CPSR must have to courage to address these Worldly realities. In
particularly when they are guised under the auspice of the UN WSIS IGF.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Sun Apr 27 18:59:05 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:59:05 -0700
Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1209312974.89795.925@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <007401c8a8ba$4b97eb90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

This probably says it all...maybe too much...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLh_tcg46bE

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: Yehuda Katz [mailto:yehudakatz at mailinator.com] 
Sent: April 27, 2008 9:23 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: RE: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor


>And what does this have to do with igov?
>It wont matter if its obama, hilary or mccain..
>you're not going to see the JPA annulled,
>DoC giving up its oversight to a self formed
>coalition of civil society etc etc.


What does it have to do with IG ...

Well if you don't belive that Racism is Alive-and-Well on the Internet and
its global infrastructure, and that those whom are choosen to leed IG
'do-not' come along with socio-economic-hyper-ethno-centric baggage, and
that their occupation of such positions are judically color-blind under
their Robes. ... If you truly belive that, then I guess your right. 

I don't, and as Icann go forward with its plans (be them as they
materialise) of auctioning TLDs et. al. their programs, you may see:
Dot.Baptist Dot.Jewish Dot.Christian Dot.Catholic Dot.Protistent Dot.Hundu
Dot.Muslim Dot.Budist Dot.Detity Dot.White Dot.Black
Dot.hyper-ethno-centric-socio-poly-economic-coaltion(s)
etc...

Here's a few topic for the IGF workshops:
IGC workshop: A religious agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A racial agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A socio-poly-economic agenda for Internet.

Like it or not, IG will have to touch these issues in one form or another,
IG will effect these issues in one form or another.

It would be quite unfortunate for this list to be used solely for IG
discussions of Commerce and Technical issues. (That's called Icann's: ALAC)

The CPSR must have to courage to address these Worldly realities. In
particularly when they are guised under the auspice of the UN WSIS IGF.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

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

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


From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au  Sun Apr 27 20:54:21 2008
From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor
Message-ID: <777351.687.qm@web54103.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

You can broaden internet governance to include just about anything and everything given the impact of the internet has on everyday life. However postings like this just clutter the list and make it difficult for a lot of people to cope with the dozens, or even hundreds, of emails that fill their in-boxes every day.

Just because something is available through the internet doesn't make it a candidate for internet governance.

Cheers
David



----- Original Message ----
From: Yehuda Katz <yehudakatz at mailinator.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Monday, 28 April, 2008 2:22:42 AM
Subject: Re: RE: [governance] U.S. Politics - Barack Obama's Pastor

>And what does this have to do with igov?
>It wont matter if its obama, hilary or mccain..
>you're not going to see the JPA annulled,
>DoC giving up its oversight to a self formed
>coalition of civil society etc etc.


What does it have to do with IG ...

Well if you don't belive that Racism is Alive-and-Well on the Internet and its
global infrastructure, and that those whom are choosen to leed IG 'do-not' come
along with socio-economic-hyper-ethno-centric baggage, and that their
occupation of such positions are judically color-blind under their Robes. ...
If you truly belive that, then I guess your right. 

I don't, and as Icann go forward with its plans (be them as they materialise)
of auctioning TLDs et. al. their programs, you may see:
Dot.Baptist
Dot.Jewish
Dot.Christian
Dot.Catholic
Dot.Protistent
Dot.Hundu
Dot.Muslim
Dot.Budist
Dot.Detity
Dot.White
Dot.Black
Dot.hyper-ethno-centric-socio-poly-economic-coaltion(s)
etc...

Here's a few topic for the IGF workshops:
IGC workshop: A religious agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A racial agenda for Internet.
IGC workshop: A socio-poly-economic agenda for Internet.

Like it or not, IG will have to touch these issues in one form or another,
IG will effect these issues in one form or another.

It would be quite unfortunate for this list to be used solely for IG
discussions of Commerce and Technical issues. (That's called Icann's: ALAC)

The CPSR must have to courage to address these Worldly realities. In
particularly when they are guised under the auspice of the UN WSIS IGF.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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



      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 28 12:21:55 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:51:55 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
Message-ID: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>


Hi all

Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF


These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.  

Thanks

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
Size: 20596
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/23f2eea1/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
Size: 9378
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/23f2eea1/attachment-0001.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet Governance
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
Size: 129735
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/23f2eea1/attachment-0002.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Jeremy Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
Size: 11987
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/23f2eea1/attachment-0003.eml>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Apr 28 12:53:20 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:23:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080428165351.99DD267B49@smtp1.electricembers.net>



I must also mention that the adoption of these as IGF proposals will require
at least some verbally articulated 'yes' votes, and complete silence will
not be enough to carry them. Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:52 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
> 
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> 
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> 
> These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> 
> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> they stand...
> 
> While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
> should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
> In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
> vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
> consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Parminder
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 28 13:25:53 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:25:53 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this.  If we could clarify something before having to say yes or
no, I¹d appreciate it.

Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the questions
that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 and 9?  Of are you
thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand for all nine,
irrespective of what state it¹s in and whether it¹s ready for prime time?
If it is the latter, maybe others have a different view, but I wouldn¹t
think it would be a procedural violation of the consensus call to simply
edit out some of the various process comments being exchanged among WG
members within these docs, like ³NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means
that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair² and ³it would be
good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as co-sponsors -
i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - brazil, uk, australia,
others?² and ³we need to work on thisk, but for sure it will if we get the
right people as speakers² and lists of people/orgs that might (or might not)
be contacted about cosponsoring/speaking...etc.  It would be odd to me
anyway to include such material in something that will be reviewed by the
MAG.   


A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, given that
I¹ve missed the deadline.

I¹m still having a hard time getting my head around the precise focus of the
rights proposal (³What is lacking is a rights framework for Internet
governance that can address these issues and conflicts at each Œlayer¹ of
the Internet environment, from the critical Internet resources of
infrastructure and code through to the content and applications that they
support²---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just
access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new
rights, etc.  

On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in terms of
this binary: ³Some believe  that there are elements of the IGF's mandate
that have been overlooked  or minimised in its operation to date.  Others
maintain, to the  contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching
ambitions of  those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for
discussion  into something more.?²  Some MAGites et al might read this as
suggesting that those who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked
by definition want to ³transform it from a non-binding forum,² which is not
representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm bells
and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being Œcontroversial¹
etc.  BTW, this needs to list at least one or two cosponsors, no?  Has the
WG reached out to anyone?

Best,

Bill

On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi all
> 
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> 
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> 
> These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> 
> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> they stand...
> 
> While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
> should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
> In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
> vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
> consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Parminder 
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/5029e053/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 kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Apr 28 14:25:59 2008
From: kboakye1 at yahoo.co.uk (kwasi boakye-akyeampong)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:25:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] CANADIAN NET NEUTRALITY FIGHT ESCALATES BETWEEN CAIP
 AND BELL
Message-ID: <52431.986.qm@web25502.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/33576499/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 28 17:35:02 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:35:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


> 
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
"globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
will be no shortage of people taking the other view.

> 
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I hope others will express their support for this one. Obviously I think
its a good idea. One new development: Stefano Trumpy of Italy has agreed
to participate, and we have established a promising connection to a
major private sector registrar who will probably also participate. I
have one (count 'em) volunteer from this list. We badly need developing
country perspectives on this panel, imho.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I strongly support the idea of this workshop and believe in its
potential value. Although there were disagreements aired on the issues
it will raise, the long and substantive discussion proves that RAIG is
precisely the kind of topic that needs to be "worked out" in a
"work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing
group to pay careful attention to finding and including ideologically
diverse viewpoints on the panel. Understand also that the highly diverse
views will require careful time management, if one is to achieve full
engagement. 

> 
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 

Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the
longstanding support for this concept within IGC, going back to last
year or even before, makes it a no-brainer. I would ask the organizers
to remove the word "overreaching" from the phrase "...contain the
overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it..." near the end,
as it seems less than impartial.

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 mueller at syr.edu  Mon Apr 28 18:26:11 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 18:26:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

 
 



________________________________

	From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
	
	Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to
the questions that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4
and 9?  Of are you thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand
for all nine, irrespective of what state it's in and whether it's ready
for prime time?   
	 
	I am assuming that we the organizers submit it ourselves, and
that we only reply to questions 1,2,4 and 9 by the April 30 deadline.
--MM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/e174221e/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 28 18:56:56 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:56:56 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <B32F0214-44C6-45FB-8ED9-4B98D94DA532@ras.eu.org>


Le 29 avr. 08 à 00:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>
> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
> Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the  
> questions that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4  
> and 9?  Of are you thinking of plugging in all the material now at  
> hand for all nine, irrespective of what state it’s in and whether  
> it’s ready for prime time?
>
> I am assuming that we the organizers submit it ourselves, and that  
> we only reply to questions 1,2,4 and 9 by the April 30 deadline. --MM

What do you mean by "we the organizers"? The workshops have co- 
sponsors (i.e. co-organizers), among them the IGC, which is co- 
sponsoring the 4 workshops proposal.
So, shall we identify a main organizer, who would submit the proposal?
If so, then it seems that IGC is the main organizer of 3 out of the 4  
workshops (transboundary, rights agenda, IGF role and mandate) and  
would submit them subject to consensus reaching, while IGP is the  
main organizer of the "internationalization" workshop, will submit  
it, mentioning IGC co-sponsorship.
This would mean that actually IGC is making 3 workshop proposals as  
main organizers, not 4, and is co-sponsoring 1 as for now.

Do we all share this understanding?

On the submission format, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't  
answer more questions than #1, 2, 4 and 9, if answers are ready for a  
given proposal. The more close to final a submission is, the more  
chances we have to see it selected. I agree that we should clean the  
submissions from ongoing process comments.

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  Mon Apr 28 19:47:14 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:47:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <E721AEFD-08B6-47D8-A40E-C95C4E3448B4@ras.eu.org>

Hi Parminder and all,

Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that  
> IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the  
working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential IG  
issue to be put on IGF table.

> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I also support this one, as co-sponsored by IGC. Like the above  
workshop, it raises an issue which is at the heart of IG. I regret  
that its focus hasn't been extended beyond ICANN (as I proposed in a  
previous mail), but the IGC failed to bring the necessary inputs,  
so.. Milton mentioned that he has one volunteer from this list: if  
this person is supposed to speak as an IGC representative, we should  
discuss this. If as an individual/individual org representative, fine.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I'm pretty embarassed here. I strongly support the idea of advancing  
the issue of a 'right to access the Internet' (which is not  
necessarily a 'right to communicate' as it has been framed by some  
groups since the 80s) and defining what is encompassed by this right.  
But - and I'm really sorry I haven't had time to participate in the  
list discussion and to react in time - I do think the issue is not  
adequately framed here. I'm afraid that, as currently described, it  
would lead to nowhere but the old "NWICO trap", especially when  
speakers are supposed to show a diversity of perspective.
I'm also afraid that the current description of the workshop is not  
clear at all: it's hard to understand what is the main concern,  
because there are too many references to current works related mainly  
to freedom of expression and to "mapping existing rights in the  
context of Internet" (works which, BTW, remains questionable). Very  
different concepts seem simply mixed up. Frankly, it smells like  
beating around the (old) bush.. or like ideas that still needs  
maturing before reaching the step of a coherent discussion. This is  
BTW reflected in the list of prospective panelists: seems like anyone  
could be in, while a well focused proposal would provide directions  
on who should be approached and who wouldn't bring any strong point  
in the debate.
In summary: I don't want to oppose this workshop in the current  
consensus seeking process, mainly because I feel I haven't any right  
to do so because I haven't participated to the previous discussion.  
But, to be honest, I don't feel the proposal appropriate, as it is.  
And in terms of advocacy in favor of a 'right to access the  
Internet', I really think it would be counterproductive. But that's  
another discussion.

> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF

Most needed. It's the IGC trademark:)

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 gurstein at gmail.com  Mon Apr 28 20:16:02 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:16:02 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <E721AEFD-08B6-47D8-A40E-C95C4E3448B4@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <01ef01c8a98e$386f7d60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

With all repect, at this point two days before the deadline and after (for
example the Rights Workshop) discussion has gone on for a couple of weeks
with several invitations to involvment it is really beside the point to
present substantive issues. Nothing useful can be done about with these
comments at this this point without re-opening sometimes fairly complex
consensus (satisficing) processes.  

I would have thought that the only useful contributions at this stage would
be strategic i.e. whether or how to package the proposal from the
perspective of getting it accepted... 

Looking forward the substantive issues presumably will (or should) be
covered first in the selection of WS participants and then in the discussion
itself.

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
Sent: April 28, 2008 4:47 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops


Hi Parminder and all,

Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that 
> IGC proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the  
working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential IG  
issue to be put on IGF table.

> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I also support this one, as co-sponsored by IGC. Like the above  
workshop, it raises an issue which is at the heart of IG. I regret  
that its focus hasn't been extended beyond ICANN (as I proposed in a  
previous mail), but the IGC failed to bring the necessary inputs,  
so.. Milton mentioned that he has one volunteer from this list: if  
this person is supposed to speak as an IGC representative, we should  
discuss this. If as an individual/individual org representative, fine.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I'm pretty embarassed here. I strongly support the idea of advancing  
the issue of a 'right to access the Internet' (which is not  
necessarily a 'right to communicate' as it has been framed by some  
groups since the 80s) and defining what is encompassed by this right.  
But - and I'm really sorry I haven't had time to participate in the  
list discussion and to react in time - I do think the issue is not  
adequately framed here. I'm afraid that, as currently described, it  
would lead to nowhere but the old "NWICO trap", especially when  
speakers are supposed to show a diversity of perspective.
I'm also afraid that the current description of the workshop is not  
clear at all: it's hard to understand what is the main concern,  
because there are too many references to current works related mainly  
to freedom of expression and to "mapping existing rights in the  
context of Internet" (works which, BTW, remains questionable). Very  
different concepts seem simply mixed up. Frankly, it smells like  
beating around the (old) bush.. or like ideas that still needs  
maturing before reaching the step of a coherent discussion. This is  
BTW reflected in the list of prospective panelists: seems like anyone  
could be in, while a well focused proposal would provide directions  
on who should be approached and who wouldn't bring any strong point  
in the debate.
In summary: I don't want to oppose this workshop in the current  
consensus seeking process, mainly because I feel I haven't any right  
to do so because I haven't participated to the previous discussion.  
But, to be honest, I don't feel the proposal appropriate, as it is.  
And in terms of advocacy in favor of a 'right to access the  
Internet', I really think it would be counterproductive. But that's  
another discussion.

> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF

Most needed. It's the IGC trademark:)

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 Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au  Mon Apr 28 20:36:15 2008
From: Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:36:15 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <FAF5D6B9-F9C3-407D-8A05-2A35DE0174E9@Malcolm.id.au>

On 29/04/2008, at 12:21 AM, Parminder wrote:

> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these  
> proposals, as
> they stand...

I vote "yes" to each of the proposals.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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

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


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Mon Apr 28 20:38:29 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:38:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804281738i445099d0i4729ab2da3906e00@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Milton, and All:

This is a resonating comment regarding your post per Point 3 ('Rights').

At meetings I have attended regarding  'Rights'
approaches,*issue-spotting*parts seemed indeed very fruitful.

An outline or diagram or other such  - of interesting points
*though*controversial, or
*because* controversial  - should be exciting, even essential,  - and  per
se comprise real contributions to present and future considerations, and
also illumine past conversations on this focal if sometimes diffuse topic..
How could it be otherwise, with so much packed into it !

One imagines, btw, that speakers on particular matters might be encouraged
to submit their own individual descriptions of what the 'Internet / Rights'
domain looks like, and over what sub-topics it ranges; this challenging
exercise in itself can be so very educational when shared. on the pathway of
process, even in addition to any achieved products.

Hope this plugs into the w"hole"...

And sent with best wishes, Linda.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces*.

On 4/28/08, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
> be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
> "globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
> will be no shortage of people taking the other view.
>
> >
> > 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
> I hope others will express their support for this one. Obviously I think
> its a good idea. One new development: Stefano Trumpy of Italy has agreed
> to participate, and we have established a promising connection to a
> major private sector registrar who will probably also participate. I
> have one (count 'em) volunteer from this list. We badly need developing
> country perspectives on this panel, imho.
>
> > 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> I strongly support the idea of this workshop and believe in its
> potential value. Although there were disagreements aired on the issues
> it will raise, the long and substantive discussion proves that RAIG is
> precisely the kind of topic that needs to be "worked out" in a
> "work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
> NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
> approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
> there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing
> group to pay careful attention to finding and including ideologically
> diverse viewpoints on the panel. Understand also that the highly diverse
> views will require careful time management, if one is to achieve full
> engagement.
>
> >
> > 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> >
>
> Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
> developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the
> longstanding support for this concept within IGC, going back to last
> year or even before, makes it a no-brainer. I would ask the organizers
> to remove the word "overreaching" from the phrase "...contain the
> overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it..." near the end,
> as it seems less than impartial.
>
> 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
>



-- 
-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
Other Affiliations on Request.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080428/002e221d/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 28 22:50:51 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:50:51 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20080429025051.GA7565@hserus.net>

Milton L Mueller [28/04/08 17:35 -0400]:
>> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
>I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
>be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
>"globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
>will be no shortage of people taking the other view.

This would be a good place to have someone in law enforcement and who has a
balanced perspective. Not the IP law and takedown community crowd.

Explicitly anti sovereign tends to produce a whole lot of extreme silliness  
though, so I am not sure what benefit that will have besides the supposed 
entertainment value (like that fellow who suddenly turned your athens panel
into a "lets bash the bush administration for iraq" speech)

>> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
>"work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
>NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
>approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
>there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing

There's no such unified position, and even if there was, I dont think this
caucus can claim to speak for all of civil society. 

I, for one, would try to change the direction of this to make it an
"empowerment based" agenda, instead of one where there's simply a strident
clamoring for "rights", with little or no conception of the actual
realities of governance.

Diplo capacity building courses, for example, to sensitize civil society
groups to these issues. Or ARIN / other RIR public policy and EC
initiatives.

>> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>> 
>Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
>developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the

I would suggest that the panelists here think outside the box, and beyond
the IGF (which, in itself, is - or can well be - a set of people, in a set
of panels, at an exotic location)

How do links and cooperation between orgs forged within the IGF translate
to real world cooperation, and real world participation in each others
processes?

	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 david.souter at runbox.com  Tue Apr 29 01:43:13 2008
From: david.souter at runbox.com (david.souter at runbox.com)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] CofE/UNECE/APC study of IG information and
 participation
Message-ID: <sympa.1209447594.96340.561@lists.cpsr.org>

Dear Colleague:
 
I have recently been commissioned by the Council of Europe, UNECE and the
Association for Progressive Communications to do some exploratory work about
the possibility of a "code of good practice on public participation, access to
information and transparency in Internet governance."  
 
The CofE, UNECE and APC held a first workshop on this theme during the Rio IGF
meeting, with specific reference to the WSIS principles and to the UNECE Aarhus
Convention (which is concerned with information and participation on
environmental issues).	The present work aims to build towards discussion at
the Hyderabad IGF in December, but a first stage consultation workshop is
scheduled for Geneva on the 23rd of May and I will be completing the initial
discussion paper for this by the 12th of May.  The May workshop is notified on
the UNECE website at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm.
 
I am writing to members of the Internet Governance Caucus, therefore, to ask if
there is any input which you feel you would like to make to this work before
the May consultation meeting.  I would be particularly interested in any
thoughts you might have on:
o	present and desirable levels of (public and multistakeholder)
participation in internet governance issues;
o	potential participation principles;
o	information requirements for participation (and potential tools to meet
these);
o	and mechanisms which might either facilitate participation or oversee
changes in participation and information arrangements for the future;
as well as on those aspects of internet governance which you think require
priority attention where information and participation are concerned.
 
I would also be very interested in any experiences - good or bad, particularly
from within the internet space but also from outside it - which you think might
be helpful in thinking through options for information, participation and
transparency in internet governance.  
 
Any thoughts you might be prepared to put forward on these issues, and any
references, would be most welcome and much appreciated - particularly if sent
to me at david.souter at runbox.com before the 10th of May.  Please also don't
hesitate to email me if you would like to discuss more generally.
 
David Souter
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 29 02:09:53 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:09:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <FAF5D6B9-F9C3-407D-8A05-2A35DE0174E9@Malcolm.id.au>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <FAF5D6B9-F9C3-407D-8A05-2A35DE0174E9@Malcolm.id.au>
Message-ID: <p06240803c43c6b56abec@[192.168.1.3]>

At 8:36 AM +0800 4/29/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>On 29/04/2008, at 12:21 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
>>Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
>>they stand...
>
>I vote "yes" to each of the proposals.


Yes to all.

Adam




>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Tue Apr 29 02:10:22 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:10:22 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To:  <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06240802c43c6a025c55@[192.168.1.3]>

At 6:26 PM -0400 4/28/08, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C8A97E.DCB46FEA"
>
>
>
>
>
>From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>
>Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting 
>only responses to the questions that are 
>supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 
>and 9?  Of are you thinking of plugging in all 
>the material now at hand for all nine, 
>irrespective of what state it¹s in and whether 
>it¹s ready for prime time?   
>
>I am assuming that we the organizers submit it 
>ourselves, and that we only reply to questions 
>1,2,4 and 9 by the April 30 deadline. --MM
>


You can answer as many questions as you are able. 
But 1, 2, 4 and 9 are the core.

Question 9 is a bit confusing, asking which of 
the five themes the proposal falls under and not 
completely consistent with the draft program that 
came out of the last MAG meeting.  So try to list 
under the five themes, and add whatever 
additional theme (emerging issues, way forward, 
development, capacity building etc.), as a 
comment added to the text description.

Adam




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

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 02:12:31 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:12:31 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <p06240803c43c6b56abec@[192.168.1.3]>
Message-ID: <025c01c8a9c0$08166700$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


Yes to all,

MG


-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: April 28, 2008 11:10 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops


At 8:36 AM +0800 4/29/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>On 29/04/2008, at 12:21 AM, Parminder wrote:
>
>>Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, 
>>as they stand...
>
>I vote "yes" to each of the proposals.


Yes to all.

Adam




>--
>Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
>Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
>host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 29 02:26:58 2008
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:26:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <01ef01c8a98e$386f7d60$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <C43C8C52.113B0%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi Michael,

I understand that with working groups having gone through a process and with
little time left on the clock, substantive comments might seem a little
late.  Needless to say, we should have started each step earlier.
But I would disagree that substantive comments are beside the point, as they
pertain to whether and how strongly people support the various proposals, as
well as to the strategic point you raise (substance is packaging here).

Anyway, irrespective of any qualms about this or that bit of packaging, I
vote yes to all.

A couple points:

*The 30 April submissions being preliminary place holders, the descriptive
texts can continue to evolve as the answers to the other questions are
filled in.  As such, hopefully substantive comments made whenever will at
least be considered as the proposals move toward finalization.

It would help if our MAG folk could let us know when they do when the MAG
will actually begin to review submissions, as this could affect when people
do their revisions.  And probably it would make sense to notify MAG reps or
the secretariat when changes are made to ensure MAG doesn't start making
decisions based on outdated version submitted earlier.

*The issue's been raised as to who actually makes the submissions.  I would
think the convener of each working group should do it, to make the process
of revision easier.  There's no reason to add the extra step of forwarding
each change to Parminder and expecting him to do it.

*I would again suggest that the wg conveners clip out the process notes
before the initial submissions.

On this,

On 4/29/08 8:10 AM, "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> Question 9 is a bit confusing, asking which of
> the five themes the proposal falls under and not
> completely consistent with the draft program that
> came out of the last MAG meeting.  So try to list
> under the five themes, and add whatever
> additional theme (emerging issues, way forward,
> development, capacity building etc.), as a
> comment added to the text description.

Why can't this get fixed on the web form, rather than asking people to
contort to fit the wrong categories?  And maybe clean up the other odd bits
in the questions? 

Cheers,

Bill
 


On 4/29/08 2:16 AM, "Michael Gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> With all repect, at this point two days before the deadline and after (for
> example the Rights Workshop) discussion has gone on for a couple of weeks
> with several invitations to involvment it is really beside the point to
> present substantive issues. Nothing useful can be done about with these
> comments at this this point without re-opening sometimes fairly complex
> consensus (satisficing) processes.
> 
> I would have thought that the only useful contributions at this stage would
> be strategic i.e. whether or how to package the proposal from the
> perspective of getting it accepted...
> 
> Looking forward the substantive issues presumably will (or should) be
> covered first in the selection of WS participants and then in the discussion
> itself.
> 
> MG
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: April 28, 2008 4:47 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
> 
> 
> Hi Parminder and all,
> 
> Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>> 
>> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that
>> IGC proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>> 
>> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the
> working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential IG
> issue to be put on IGF table.
> 
>> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
> I also support this one, as co-sponsored by IGC. Like the above
> workshop, it raises an issue which is at the heart of IG. I regret
> that its focus hasn't been extended beyond ICANN (as I proposed in a
> previous mail), but the IGC failed to bring the necessary inputs,
> so.. Milton mentioned that he has one volunteer from this list: if
> this person is supposed to speak as an IGC representative, we should
> discuss this. If as an individual/individual org representative, fine.
> 
>> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> I'm pretty embarassed here. I strongly support the idea of advancing
> the issue of a 'right to access the Internet' (which is not
> necessarily a 'right to communicate' as it has been framed by some
> groups since the 80s) and defining what is encompassed by this right.
> But - and I'm really sorry I haven't had time to participate in the
> list discussion and to react in time - I do think the issue is not
> adequately framed here. I'm afraid that, as currently described, it
> would lead to nowhere but the old "NWICO trap", especially when
> speakers are supposed to show a diversity of perspective.
> I'm also afraid that the current description of the workshop is not
> clear at all: it's hard to understand what is the main concern,
> because there are too many references to current works related mainly
> to freedom of expression and to "mapping existing rights in the
> context of Internet" (works which, BTW, remains questionable). Very
> different concepts seem simply mixed up. Frankly, it smells like
> beating around the (old) bush.. or like ideas that still needs
> maturing before reaching the step of a coherent discussion. This is
> BTW reflected in the list of prospective panelists: seems like anyone
> could be in, while a well focused proposal would provide directions
> on who should be approached and who wouldn't bring any strong point
> in the debate.
> In summary: I don't want to oppose this workshop in the current
> consensus seeking process, mainly because I feel I haven't any right
> to do so because I haven't participated to the previous discussion.
> But, to be honest, I don't feel the proposal appropriate, as it is.
> And in terms of advocacy in favor of a 'right to access the
> Internet', I really think it would be counterproductive. But that's
> another discussion.
> 
>> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> Most needed. It's the IGC trademark:)
> 
> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Apr 29 04:52:39 2008
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang?=)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:52:39 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF workshops
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
 <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425CBB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Milton has put forward  the right arguments. I also support the four workshops. I would consider a 5th proposal, dealing with consumer/user rights (including privacy and right to freedom of expression). It could be part of the "Right´s  Agenda" but should be more focused on the individual rights of consumers/users. 
 
Wolfgang (back from the hospital but still handicpapped after a complicated and painful operation in my left shoulder which explains my silence over the last days)   

________________________________

Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mo 28.04.2008 23:35
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF workshops




>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
"globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
will be no shortage of people taking the other view.

>
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I hope others will express their support for this one. Obviously I think
its a good idea. One new development: Stefano Trumpy of Italy has agreed
to participate, and we have established a promising connection to a
major private sector registrar who will probably also participate. I
have one (count 'em) volunteer from this list. We badly need developing
country perspectives on this panel, imho.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I strongly support the idea of this workshop and believe in its
potential value. Although there were disagreements aired on the issues
it will raise, the long and substantive discussion proves that RAIG is
precisely the kind of topic that needs to be "worked out" in a
"work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing
group to pay careful attention to finding and including ideologically
diverse viewpoints on the panel. Understand also that the highly diverse
views will require careful time management, if one is to achieve full
engagement.

>
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>

Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the
longstanding support for this concept within IGC, going back to last
year or even before, makes it a no-brainer. I would ask the organizers
to remove the word "overreaching" from the phrase "...contain the
overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it..." near the end,
as it seems less than impartial.

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org <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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 05:50:38 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:50:38 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804290250i7e8737ado72cae551c5c04678@mail.gmail.com>

the four workshop proposals are well and I also support it. So beside
consumer/user rights including privacy and right to freedom of expression,
we have also  multilinguism  preoccupation.  Since 2006, when we have open a
debate about Tunis Agenda, frequently this  problematic is come down from
major internet user in africa.

Baudouin.

2008/4/28 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:

>
> Hi all
>
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
> These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
>
> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> they stand...
>
> While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
> should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>
> In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
> vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
> consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parminder
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/c330358d/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 vcretu at cmb.md  Tue Apr 29 06:01:43 2008
From: vcretu at cmb.md (vcretu at cmb.md)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:01:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To:      <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425CBB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.d
     e>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
    <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
    <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425CBB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <46110.92.114.215.243.1209463303.squirrel@webmail.webair.com>

Greetings!
I support Milton's arguments and I especially agree with the fact that
involvement of developing country into the The Future of ICANN: After the
JPA, What? is mandatory. Why? - first of all because developing countries
should understand and be aware of the role ICANN plays and will play and
how that role might affect/impact the developments of the developing
countries. The question is what stakeholder we think should be most
appropriate to invite: the Government, Business Sector, Civil society or
international community repres. present in a developing country???

I also support Wolfgang's 5th proposal on the Consumer/user rights.
Wolfgang hope you feel better soon after the operation!

Regards from a rainy Moldova,
Veronica


> Milton has put forward  the right arguments. I also support the four
> workshops. I would consider a 5th proposal, dealing with consumer/user
> rights (including privacy and right to freedom of expression). It could be
> part of the "Right´s  Agenda" but should be more focused on the individual
> rights of consumers/users.
>
> Wolfgang (back from the hospital but still handicpapped after a
> complicated and painful operation in my left shoulder which explains my
> silence over the last days)
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Mo 28.04.2008 23:35
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF workshops
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
> be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
> "globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
> will be no shortage of people taking the other view.
>
>>
>> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
> I hope others will express their support for this one. Obviously I think
> its a good idea. One new development: Stefano Trumpy of Italy has agreed
> to participate, and we have established a promising connection to a
> major private sector registrar who will probably also participate. I
> have one (count 'em) volunteer from this list. We badly need developing
> country perspectives on this panel, imho.
>
>> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> I strongly support the idea of this workshop and believe in its
> potential value. Although there were disagreements aired on the issues
> it will raise, the long and substantive discussion proves that RAIG is
> precisely the kind of topic that needs to be "worked out" in a
> "work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
> NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
> approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
> there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing
> group to pay careful attention to finding and including ideologically
> diverse viewpoints on the panel. Understand also that the highly diverse
> views will require careful time management, if one is to achieve full
> engagement.
>
>>
>> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>>
>
> Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
> developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the
> longstanding support for this concept within IGC, going back to last
> year or even before, makes it a no-brainer. I would ask the organizers
> to remove the word "overreaching" from the phrase "...contain the
> overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it..." near the end,
> as it seems less than impartial.
>
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <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
>




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 29 06:08:43 2008
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:08:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] CofE/UNECE/APC study of IG information and
 participation
In-Reply-To: <sympa.1209447594.96340.561@lists.cpsr.org>
References: <sympa.1209447594.96340.561@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <ecb172de0804290308r632dae16h7dee6149c466e210@mail.gmail.com>

hi David,

I can give some inputs only in french because it's from french  country
speaking.

Baudouin

2008/4/29 <david.souter at runbox.com>:

> Dear Colleague:
>
> I have recently been commissioned by the Council of Europe, UNECE and the
> Association for Progressive Communications to do some exploratory work
> about
> the possibility of a "code of good practice on public participation,
> access to
> information and transparency in Internet governance."
>
> The CofE, UNECE and APC held a first workshop on this theme during the Rio
> IGF
> meeting, with specific reference to the WSIS principles and to the UNECE
> Aarhus
> Convention (which is concerned with information and participation on
> environmental issues).  The present work aims to build towards discussion
> at
> the Hyderabad IGF in December, but a first stage consultation workshop is
> scheduled for Geneva on the 23rd of May and I will be completing the
> initial
> discussion paper for this by the 12th of May.  The May workshop is
> notified on
> the UNECE website at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm.
>
> I am writing to members of the Internet Governance Caucus, therefore, to
> ask if
> there is any input which you feel you would like to make to this work
> before
> the May consultation meeting.  I would be particularly interested in any
> thoughts you might have on:
> o       present and desirable levels of (public and multistakeholder)
> participation in internet governance issues;
> o       potential participation principles;
> o       information requirements for participation (and potential tools to
> meet
> these);
> o       and mechanisms which might either facilitate participation or
> oversee
> changes in participation and information arrangements for the future;
> as well as on those aspects of internet governance which you think require
> priority attention where information and participation are concerned.
>
> I would also be very interested in any experiences - good or bad,
> particularly
> from within the internet space but also from outside it - which you think
> might
> be helpful in thinking through options for information, participation and
> transparency in internet governance.
>
> Any thoughts you might be prepared to put forward on these issues, and any
> references, would be most welcome and much appreciated - particularly if
> sent
> to me at david.souter at runbox.com before the 10th of May.  Please also
> don't
> hesitate to email me if you would like to discuss more generally.
>
> David Souter
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
http://akimambo.unblog.fr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/253f6c47/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 klohento at panos-ao.org  Tue Apr 29 06:23:49 2008
From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken Lohento)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:23:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <4816F735.90305@panos-ao.org>


> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
>   
I vote Yes.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>   

I vote Yes too. I'm more interested in these two workshops, in 
particular in the fourth one and my organization (Panos Institute West 
Africa) is ready to become involved as one of its sponsors.

Best regards

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Tue Apr 29 08:11:18 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:11:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops (transboundary Internet)
In-Reply-To: <E721AEFD-08B6-47D8-A40E-C95C4E3448B4@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <E721AEFD-08B6-47D8-A40E-C95C4E3448B4@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <469B6794-D4B7-4279-926A-DD729EBC9BF0@ras.eu.org>


Le 29 avr. 08 à 01:47, Meryem Marzouki a écrit :

> Le 28 avr. 08 à 18:21, Parminder a écrit :
>>
>> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals,  
>> that IGC
>> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>>
>> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> I obviously support this one as an IGC workshop, since I'm in the  
> working group preparing it. It's more than time for this essential  
> IG issue to be put on IGF table.

I've just received and excellent news that I wanted to share with the  
caucus: the Council of Europe agrees on co-sponsoring this IGC  
workshop, and Ms. Maud de Boer- Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General,  
confirms that she will be one of this speakers. I'm going to update  
accordingly the proposal, so that it could be sent by Parminder, if  
no opposition expressed by end of the day.

Best,
Meryem

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

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


From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 09:34:58 2008
From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:34:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <p06240803c43c6b56abec@192.168.1.3>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <FAF5D6B9-F9C3-407D-8A05-2A35DE0174E9@Malcolm.id.au>
	 <p06240803c43c6b56abec@192.168.1.3>
Message-ID: <45ed74050804290634k5d49813ehf040fa1d809db773@mail.gmail.com>

yes

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> At 8:36 AM +0800 4/29/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On 29/04/2008, at 12:21 AM, Parminder wrote:
> >
> > Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> > > they stand...
> > >
> >
> > I vote "yes" to each of the proposals.
> >
>
>
> Yes to all.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> --
> > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
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/20080429/8881f855/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 vb at bertola.eu  Tue Apr 29 09:40:05 2008
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:40:05 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <48172535.4080106@bertola.eu>

Parminder ha scritto:
> Hi all
> 
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  
> 
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> 
> These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 
> 
> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> they stand...

I will be brief: Yes to all.
Ciao,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From iza at anr.org  Tue Apr 29 11:16:04 2008
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:16:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <48172535.4080106@bertola.eu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
	 <48172535.4080106@bertola.eu>
Message-ID: <a5509d940804290816w3f726392w78b635ce6185d4ed@mail.gmail.com>

I echo with YES, and also agree with Milton/Veronica to push
developing countries involvement, too.

izumi

2008/4/29 Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>:
> Parminder ha scritto:
>
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> > proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> > 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> >
> > 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> >
> > 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> >
> > 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> >
> > These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> > rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> > secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> > Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> > they stand...
> >
>
>  I will be brief: Yes to all.
>  Ciao,
>  --
>  vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
>  -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
>
>
>  ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>  For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
 >> Izumi Aizu <<

 Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
 Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
 Japan
 * * * * *
 << Writing the Future of the History >>
 www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From ginger at paque.net  Tue Apr 29 11:21:51 2008
From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:51:51 -0430
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <48172535.4080106@bertola.eu> <a5509d940804290816w3f726392w78b635ce6185d4ed@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <011701c8aa0c$c2ee0f50$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>

I also vote yes, and agree with Milton, Veronica and Izumi to push DC involvement.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Izumi AIZU 
  To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Vittorio Bertola 
  Cc: Parminder 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops


  I echo with YES, and also agree with Milton/Veronica to push
  developing countries involvement, too.

  izumi

  2008/4/29 Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu>:
  > Parminder ha scritto:
  >
  >
  > > Hi all
  > >
  > > Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
  > > proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
  > > 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
  > >
  > > 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
  > >
  > > 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
  > >
  > > 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
  > >
  > >
  > > These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
  > > rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
  > > secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
  > > Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
  > > they stand...
  > >
  >
  >  I will be brief: Yes to all.
  >  Ciao,
  >  --
  >  vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
  >  -------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
  >
  >
  >  ____________________________________________________________
  >  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
  >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
  >  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
  >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
  >
  >  For all list information and functions, see:
  >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
  >
  >



  -- 
   >> Izumi Aizu <<

   Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
   Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
   Japan
   * * * * *
   << Writing the Future of the History >>
   www.anr.org
  ____________________________________________________________
  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
       governance at lists.cpsr.org
  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

  For all list information and functions, see:
       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/ea604675/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 shailam at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 29 11:29:23 2008
From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:29:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <444812.67762.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

"Yes" to all four workshops
Shaila Rao Mistry

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: 
Hi all

Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF


These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.  

Thanks

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

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530

     [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet     All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William    
Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan    
to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and    
suggestions, on all aspects. 
        -- Bret 
  - - - - - D R A F T - - - - - 
  1.      Name of proposed workshop  
The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty 
  2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme    
including its importance and relevance to the IGF. 
  The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some    
unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a    
British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,    
selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a    
registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US    
embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark    
case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi    
memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there    
are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,    
cybercrime, and intellectual property. 
  This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national    
jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple    
normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,    
contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case    
studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various    
approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet    
governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and    
human rights and fundamental freedoms.  
The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance    
where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how    
default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives    
can lead to de facto Internet governance. 
  3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are    
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether    
you have approached them about their willingness to participate in    
proposed workshop. 
  NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more    
than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers. 
  •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The Council of    
Europe  
•       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology International/CPTech, USA  
•       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe  
•       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &    
Kneafsey, LLP USA  
•       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates, Australia  
•       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and Development    
Studies, Switzerland 
  Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various    
perspectives on specific case studies. 
  Themes to be discussed by speakers:  
•       Liability and the principle of the country of origin (off-line and    
on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II,    
Convention on TV without Frontiers,  
•       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention, E-commerce    
directive  
•       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and implementation    
activities  
•       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines, blocking    
(cf. Pakistan case)  
•       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental agreements 
  4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their    
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take    
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical    
diversity and gender balance. 
  -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)  
-       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)  
-       European Digital Rights (Civil society)  
-       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil society)  
-       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector) 
  Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,    
Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,    
OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,    
newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking    
companies, ...); other civil society constituencies. 
  5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the    
issues under discussion? 
  Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a    
comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be    
updated later). 
  6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to    
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the    
Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.  
The first and foremost need for global Internet governance    
arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the    
Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related    
to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation    
of content and data and to the protection of the general    
communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty    
issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance    
discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations,    
and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative    
methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted    
and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and    
discuss these alternatives.  
TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k) 
  7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have    
organized in the past. 
  The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have    
organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later) 
  8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did    
you submit a workshop report? 
  Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops) 
  9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ? 
  •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)  
•       Arrangements for Internet governance 
  - - - - - D R A F T - - - - - 
  ____________________________________________________________  
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:  
     governance at lists.cpsr.org  
To be removed from the list, send any message to:  
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
  For all list information and functions, see:  
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 
  From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530

     [governance] Internationalization Workshop    
  Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we  
are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.  
  1. Name of proposed workshop    
The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?   
    
2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme  
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.  
  ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name  
system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government through a  
Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA  
and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as  
"political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is  
committed to "completing the transition" to private sector coordination  
of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.  
During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also  
strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by some  
stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its  
accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.  
  This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration of  
whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if so  
what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it. Panelists  
will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and  
various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to make  
changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status quo  
will also be represented.    
    
3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are planning  
to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have  
you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed  
workshop.    
  
  ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush  
  IGP: Milton Mueller  
  Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,  
International Institute for  
  Government of Canada 
  Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member 
  Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN) 
  <civil society representative selected by IGC> 
  Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour 
  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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet Governance
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530

     Dear all

 A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to draft a proposal on:

 A rights agenda for internet goernance

 The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself. I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may have made in that list..)

 It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the IGF process.

 Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments in relation to 

 - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
 - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
 - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
 - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)

 we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take it from there.. 

 thanks everyone

 karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)

 

 

 

 
 ____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530

     [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF     A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin    
Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a    
proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the    
IGF". 
  Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider    
this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is    
presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the    
caucus is required before 30 April. 
  Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as    
possible.  Thank you! 
  --- begins --- 
  Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF' 
  Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The    
role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first    
workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?   
mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-   
appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic    
review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).    
Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same    
title during IGF, Hyderabad. 
  The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in    
general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,    
particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the    
conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this    
general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward    
and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe    
that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked    
or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the    
contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of    
those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion    
into something more. 
  Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year    
term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be    
reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to 
  (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA    
mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are    
needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate 
  (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for    
the IGF, if one is at all needed. 
  There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and    
substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include    
topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more    
focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for    
Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of    
the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.    
Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it    
will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond    
the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring    
IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will    
inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and    
working group working on important issues contributing to the    
proceedings of the annual event. 
  --   
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 
  


  be as a well......sure and limitless....
but as time befits.....assume other forms ....    
   




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/57656ce1/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  Tue Apr 29 11:36:57 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:36:57 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops: A workshop on Multilingualism and
 the Internet???
In-Reply-To: <ecb172de0804290250i7e8737ado72cae551c5c04678@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02d501c8aa0e$dcaf7710$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Colleagues, 
 
I think that we should pay serious attention to Baudouin's message below
with respect to the issue of multilingualism on the Net something that we
have been as guilty of overlooking as many others in the Anglophone
dominated Internet world... (the reason being I think, the rather narrow CS
base on which the IGC and ultimately the IGF draw upon for participation...
 
Among other things, 2008 year is the UNESCO sponsored International Year of
Languages http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35344
<http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35344&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL
_SECTION=201.html> &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html and I think it
would have been very appropriate if CS had proposed a workshop on the role
of languages (or multi-lingualizing) and the Internet.
 
(Just a thought, I'm wondering if it is too late to put in a very brief
proposal which could be fleshed out a bit later... I'm quite sure that the
Secretariat for the International Year (managed I believe by our CS
colleague Viola Krebs would be very supportive...
 
MG
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 29, 2008 2:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops



the four workshop proposals are well and I also support it. So beside
consumer/user rights including privacy and right to freedom of expression,
we have also  multilinguism  preoccupation.  Since 2006, when we have open a
debate about Tunis Agenda, frequently this  problematic is come down from
major internet user in africa.

Baudouin.


2008/4/28 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:



Hi all

Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF


These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.

Thanks

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

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





-- 
SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
Tél:+243998983491
email:b.schombe at gmail.com <mailto:email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com> 
http://akimambo.unblog.fr 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/78c78b3e/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  Tue Apr 29 11:51:48 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:51:48 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <444812.67762.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <444812.67762.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <48174414.3090301@wzb.eu>

A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the submission.
jeanette

shaila mistry wrote:
> "Yes" to all four workshops
> Shaila Rao Mistry
> 
> */Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hi all
> 
>     Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
>     proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> 
>     1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> 
>     2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
>     3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
>     4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> 
>     These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
>     rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
>     the IGF
>     secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> 
>     Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
>     they stand...
> 
>     While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
>     should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
>     In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
>     'no'
>     vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
>     consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Parminder
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
> 
>     All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William 
>     Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan 
>     to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and 
>     suggestions, on all aspects.
>           -- Bret
>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>     1.      Name of proposed workshop
>     The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>     2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme 
>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>     The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some 
>     unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a 
>     British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas, 
>     selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a 
>     registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US 
>     embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark 
>     case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi 
>     memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there 
>     are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues, 
>     cybercrime, and intellectual property.
>     This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national 
>     jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple 
>     normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical, 
>     contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case 
>     studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various 
>     approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet 
>     governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and 
>     human rights and fundamental freedoms.
>     The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance 
>     where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how 
>     default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives 
>     can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>     3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are 
>     planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether 
>     you have approached them about their willingness to participate in 
>     proposed workshop.
>     NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more 
>     than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
>     •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
>     Council of 
>     Europe
>     •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
>     International/CPTech, USA
>     •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
>     •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins & 
>     Kneafsey, LLP USA
>     •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
>     Australia
>     •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
>     Development 
>     Studies, Switzerland
>     Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various 
>     perspectives on specific case studies.
>     Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>     •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
>     (off-line and 
>     on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II, 
>     Convention on TV without Frontiers,
>     •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
>     E-commerce 
>     directive
>     •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
>     implementation 
>     activities
>     •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,
>     blocking 
>     (cf. Pakistan case)
>     •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
>     agreements
>     4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their 
>     affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
>     steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical 
>     diversity and gender balance.
>     -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
>     -       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
>     -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>     -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil
>     society)
>     -       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
>     Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA, 
>     Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE, 
>     OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations, 
>     newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking 
>     companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
>     5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on
>     the 
>     issues under discussion?
>     Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a 
>     comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be 
>     updated later).
>     6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating
>     to 
>     Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the 
>     Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>     The first and foremost need for global Internet governance 
>     arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the 
>     Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related 
>     to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation 
>     of content and data and to the protection of the general 
>     communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty 
>     issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance 
>     discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations, 
>     and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative 
>     methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted 
>     and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and 
>     discuss these alternatives.
>     TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>     7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you
>     have 
>     organized in the past.
>     The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have 
>     organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
>     8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?
>     Did 
>     you submit a workshop report?
>     Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>     9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>     under ?
>     •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>     •       Arrangements for Internet governance
>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
>     Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
> 
> 
>     Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we
>     are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.
>     1. Name of proposed workshop 
>     The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>      
>     2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>     ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
>     system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
>     through a
>     Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
>     and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
>     "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
>     committed to "completing the transition" to private sector coordination
>     of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
>     During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
>     strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by some
>     stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
>     accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
>     This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration of
>     whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if so
>     what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it. Panelists
>     will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
>     various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to make
>     changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status quo
>     will also be represented. 
>      
>     3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>     planning
>     to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
>     you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
>     workshop. 
>      
>     ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
>     IGP: Milton Mueller
>     Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
>     International Institute for
>     Government of Canada
>     Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
>     Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
>     <civil society representative selected by IGC>
>     Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
>     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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
>     Governance
>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
> 
>     Dear all
> 
>     A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to
>     draft a proposal on:
> 
>     A rights agenda for internet goernance
> 
>     The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
>     Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin
>     Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself.
>     I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or
>     rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may
>     have made in that list..)
> 
>     It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
>     that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
>     Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF
>     Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the
>     IGF process.
> 
>     Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments
>     in relation to
> 
>     - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
>     - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
>     - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
>     - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
>     would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
> 
>     we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take
>     it from there..
> 
>     thanks everyone
> 
>     karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
>     Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
> 
>     A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin 
>     Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a 
>     proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the 
>     IGF".
>     Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider 
>     this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is 
>     presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the 
>     caucus is required before 30 April.
>     Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as 
>     possible.  Thank you!
>     --- begins ---
>     Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
>     Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The 
>     role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first 
>     workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
>     mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
>     appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic 
>     review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b). 
>     Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same 
>     title during IGF, Hyderabad.
>     The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in 
>     general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society, 
>     particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the 
>     conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this 
>     general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward 
>     and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe 
>     that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked 
>     or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the 
>     contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of 
>     those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion 
>     into something more.
>     Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year 
>     term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be 
>     reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
>     (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA 
>     mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are 
>     needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
>     (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for 
>     the IGF, if one is at all needed.
>     There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and 
>     substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include 
>     topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more 
>     focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for 
>     Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of 
>     the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion. 
>     Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it 
>     will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond 
>     the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring 
>     IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will 
>     inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and 
>     working group working on important issues contributing to the 
>     proceedings of the annual event.
>     -- 
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **be as a well......sure and limitless....
> but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
> ** 
> ** 
> *
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From yjpark21 at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 11:59:47 2008
From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:59:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops: A workshop on Multilingualism and
 the Internet???
In-Reply-To: <02d501c8aa0e$dcaf7710$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <ecb172de0804290250i7e8737ado72cae551c5c04678@mail.gmail.com>
	 <02d501c8aa0e$dcaf7710$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <a74d36b0804290859w49c4be96v9babad2759062b3c@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael and all,

I am glad that IGC pays attention to "Multilingualism" on the Internet. I
have been working with Tin Wee, Subbiah from Multilingual Internet Names
Consortium (MINC) and Tijani and Zhong from World Federation of Engineering
Organization (WFEO)/Committee on Information and Communication (CIC).

If you are interested in the proposal on *Access to Local Culture and
Language*, I will be happy to circulate it to the list.

Thank you,
YJ

On 4/29/08, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Colleagues,
>
> I think that we should pay serious attention to Baudouin's message below
> with respect to the issue of multilingualism on the Net something that we
> have been as guilty of overlooking as many others in the Anglophone
> dominated Internet world... (the reason being I think, the rather narrow CS
> base on which the IGC and ultimately the IGF draw upon for participation...
>
> Among other things, 2008 year is the UNESCO sponsored International Year
> of Languages
> http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35344&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html and
> I think it would have been very appropriate if CS had proposed a workshop on
> the role of languages (or multi-lingualizing) and the Internet.
>
> (Just a thought, I'm wondering if it is too late to put in a very brief
> proposal which could be fleshed out a bit later... I'm quite sure that the
> Secretariat for the International Year (managed I believe by our CS
> colleague Viola Krebs would be very supportive...
>
> MG
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> *From:* BAUDOUIN SCHOMBE [mailto:b.schombe at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* April 29, 2008 2:51 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF workshops
>
> the four workshop proposals are well and I also support it. So beside
> consumer/user rights including privacy and right to freedom of expression,
> we have also  multilinguism  preoccupation.  Since 2006, when we have open a
> debate about Tunis Agenda, frequently this  problematic is come down from
> major internet user in africa.
>
> Baudouin.
>
> 2008/4/28 Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>:
>
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> > proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> >
> > 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> >
> > 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> >
> > 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> >
> > 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> >
> > These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> > rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the
> > IGF
> > secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> >
> > Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> > they stand...
> >
> > While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
> > should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> >
> > In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
> > 'no'
> > vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
> > consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Parminder
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
>
>
> --
> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
> COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
> COORDONNATEUR SOUS REGIONAL ACSIS/AFRIQUE CENTRALE
> MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
> Tél:+243998983491
> email:b.schombe at gmail.com <email%3Ab.schombe at gmail.com>
> http://akimambo.unblog.fr
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20080429/5f9e5cfa/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  Tue Apr 29 12:02:40 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:02:40 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <B32F0214-44C6-45FB-8ED9-4B98D94DA532@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <B32F0214-44C6-45FB-8ED9-4B98D94DA532@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC799@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
> What do you mean by "we the organizers"? 

To submit a workshop you have to have a login id from the IGF. 

> The workshops have co- 
> sponsors (i.e. co-organizers), among them the IGC, which is co- 
> sponsoring the 4 workshops proposal.
> So, shall we identify a main organizer, who would submit the proposal?

You have no choice about this, of course there must be. I have already
established such an account for the JPA workshop. 

> If so, then it seems that IGC is the main organizer of 3 out 
> of the 4  
> workshops (transboundary, rights agenda, IGF role and mandate) and  
> would submit them subject to consensus reaching, while IGP is the  
> main organizer of the "internationalization" workshop, will submit  
> it, mentioning IGC co-sponsorship.
> This would mean that actually IGC is making 3 workshop proposals as  
> main organizers, not 4, and is co-sponsoring 1 as for now.
> 
> Do we all share this understanding?

This is fine with me, but I don't think the difference in status you are
trying to establish is valid. I suspect that APC is in the same position
with respect to the rights workshop that IGP is in with respect to the
JPA WS. And it may be that others are in the same position on the other
proposals. Unless Parminder or the other co-coordinator of IGC has
actually established a login account for all the other workshops, there
is no real 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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 12:39:06 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:39:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops-Rights To/On the Internet
In-Reply-To: <48174414.3090301@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <031501c8aa17$8db52d90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


Karen, my co-convenor on the "Rights" Workshop is travelling I think, at the
moment...

In my earlier note in this thread I didn't mean to imply that the
formulation of the "Rights" Workshop was not a work in progress where
additional inputs would not be welcomed but rather that it was a bit late to
re-open the discussion prior to the April 30 deadline.

So far, contributors to the consensus on the current formulation of the
Workshop (apart from Karen/APC, Parminder and myself) have included Max
Senges,  Konstantinos Komaitis, Robert Guerra, Max Senges, Robin Gross, Lisa
Horner, vittorio Bertola and linda misek-falkoff. (apologies if I've missed
anyone).

Certainly more contributors are welcomed and we can either continue with a
thread on the full list or, as we did earlier develop an inclusive side
discussion.

MG  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: April 29, 2008 8:52 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops


A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the submission.
jeanette

shaila mistry wrote:
> "Yes" to all four workshops
> Shaila Rao Mistry
> 
> */Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     Hi all
> 
>     Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that
IGC
>     proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> 
>     1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and
> Sovereignty
> 
>     2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> 
>     3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> 
>     4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> 
> 
>     These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or
a
>     rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
>     the IGF
>     secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> 
>     Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals,
as
>     they stand...
> 
>     While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made,
they
>     should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> 
>     In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
>     'no'
>     vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
>     consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> 
>     Thanks
> 
>     Parminder
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
> 
>     All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William 
>     Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan 
>     to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and 
>     suggestions, on all aspects.
>           -- Bret
>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>     1.      Name of proposed workshop
>     The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>     2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme 
>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>     The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some 
>     unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a 
>     British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,

>     selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a 
>     registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US 
>     embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark 
>     case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi 
>     memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there

>     are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues, 
>     cybercrime, and intellectual property.
>     This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national

>     jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple 
>     normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical, 
>     contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case 
>     studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various 
>     approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet

>     governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and 
>     human rights and fundamental freedoms.
>     The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance 
>     where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how

>     default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives 
>     can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>     3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are 
>     planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether 
>     you have approached them about their willingness to participate in 
>     proposed workshop.
>     NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more

>     than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
>     •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
>     Council of 
>     Europe
>     •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
>     International/CPTech, USA
>     •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
>     •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins & 
>     Kneafsey, LLP USA
>     •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
>     Australia
>     •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
>     Development 
>     Studies, Switzerland
>     Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various 
>     perspectives on specific case studies.
>     Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>     •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
>     (off-line and 
>     on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II, 
>     Convention on TV without Frontiers,
>     •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
>     E-commerce 
>     directive
>     •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
>     implementation 
>     activities
>     •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,
>     blocking 
>     (cf. Pakistan case)
>     •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
>     agreements
>     4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their

>     affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take 
>     steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical 
>     diversity and gender balance.
>     -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
>     -       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
>     -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>     -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil
>     society)
>     -       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
>     Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA, 
>     Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE, 
>     OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,

>     newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking 
>     companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
>     5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on
>     the 
>     issues under discussion?
>     Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a 
>     comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be 
>     updated later).
>     6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating
>     to 
>     Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the 
>     Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>     The first and foremost need for global Internet governance 
>     arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the 
>     Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related 
>     to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation

>     of content and data and to the protection of the general 
>     communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty 
>     issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance 
>     discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations, 
>     and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative 
>     methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted 
>     and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and 
>     discuss these alternatives.
>     TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>     7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you
>     have 
>     organized in the past.
>     The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have 
>     organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
>     8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?
>     Did 
>     you submit a workshop report?
>     Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>     9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>     under ?
>     •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>     •       Arrangements for Internet governance
>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     For all list information and functions, see:
>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>     From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
>     Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
> 
> 
>     Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we
>     are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.
>     1. Name of proposed workshop 
>     The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>      
>     2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>     ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
>     system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
>     through a
>     Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
>     and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
>     "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
>     committed to "completing the transition" to private sector
coordination
>     of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
>     During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
>     strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by
some
>     stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
>     accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
>     This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration
of
>     whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if
so
>     what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it.
Panelists
>     will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
>     various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to
make
>     changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status
quo
>     will also be represented.
>      
>     3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>     planning
>     to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
>     you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
>     workshop.
>      
>     ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
>     IGP: Milton Mueller
>     Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
>     International Institute for
>     Government of Canada
>     Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
>     Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
>     <civil society representative selected by IGC>
>     Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
>     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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
>     Governance
>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
> 
>     Dear all
> 
>     A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to
>     draft a proposal on:
> 
>     A rights agenda for internet goernance
> 
>     The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
>     Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin
>     Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself.
>     I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or
>     rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may
>     have made in that list..)
> 
>     It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
>     that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
>     Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF
>     Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the
>     IGF process.
> 
>     Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments
>     in relation to
> 
>     - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
>     - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
>     - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
>     - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
>     would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
> 
>     we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take
>     it from there..
> 
>     thanks everyone
> 
>     karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     ____________________________________________________________
>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the
IGF
>     Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
> 
>     A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin 
>     Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a 
>     proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the 
>     IGF".
>     Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider 
>     this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is

>     presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the 
>     caucus is required before 30 April.
>     Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as 
>     possible.  Thank you!
>     --- begins ---
>     Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
>     Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The 
>     role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first 
>     workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
>     mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
>     appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a ‘periodic 
>     review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b). 
>     Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same 
>     title during IGF, Hyderabad.
>     The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in 
>     general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society, 
>     particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the 
>     conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this 
>     general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward 
>     and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe 
>     that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked

>     or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the 
>     contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of 
>     those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion 
>     into something more.
>     Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year 
>     term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be 
>     reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
>     (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA 
>     mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are 
>     needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
>     (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for 
>     the IGF, if one is at all needed.
>     There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and 
>     substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include 
>     topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more 
>     focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for 
>     Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of 
>     the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion. 
>     Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized structure’ it 
>     will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond 
>     the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring 
>     IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will 
>     inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and 
>     working group working on important issues contributing to the 
>     proceedings of the annual event.
>     -- 
>     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **be as a well......sure and limitless....
> but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
> **
> **
> *
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr 29 12:49:43 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:49:43 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops-Rights To/On the Internet
In-Reply-To: <031501c8aa17$8db52d90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <031501c8aa17$8db52d90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <A1547C77-98C4-4C7C-9F5B-AB68E84F6C89@ras.eu.org>

Michael,

this is to answer your mail below and the message you sent earlier on  
this issue.
I've made clear that I won't oppose that IGC propose this workshop,  
and moreover I've made clear that this is because I haven't been able  
to take to the discussions in due time.

So you can count my comments as a "yes", or as an abstention, but  
certainly not as a "no".

I simply made these comments not to reopen any discussion *now*, but  
in view of possible further refinements of the proposal, after its  
submission.
As a matter of fact, I note from your new subject line that you seem  
to also think there is a difference between "rights to" and "rights  
on" the Internet. What I was saying is that the current formulation/ 
framing was mixing both, and, in my opinion, this is inappropriate  
and counterproductive.

I'll be happy to join dicussions, after submission deadline, on  
refining this proposal.

Best,
Meryem

Le 29 avr. 08 à 18:39, Michael Gurstein a écrit :

>
> Karen, my co-convenor on the "Rights" Workshop is travelling I  
> think, at the
> moment...
>
> In my earlier note in this thread I didn't mean to imply that the
> formulation of the "Rights" Workshop was not a work in progress where
> additional inputs would not be welcomed but rather that it was a  
> bit late to
> re-open the discussion prior to the April 30 deadline.
>
> So far, contributors to the consensus on the current formulation of  
> the
> Workshop (apart from Karen/APC, Parminder and myself) have included  
> Max
> Senges,  Konstantinos Komaitis, Robert Guerra, Max Senges, Robin  
> Gross, Lisa
> Horner, vittorio Bertola and linda misek-falkoff. (apologies if  
> I've missed
> anyone).
>
> Certainly more contributors are welcomed and we can either continue  
> with a
> thread on the full list or, as we did earlier develop an inclusive  
> side
> discussion.
>
> MG
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: April 29, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
>
>
> A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
> I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the  
> submission.
> jeanette
>
> shaila mistry wrote:
>> "Yes" to all four workshops
>> Shaila Rao Mistry
>>
>> */Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Hi all
>>
>>     Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals,  
>> that
> IGC
>>     proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>>
>>     1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and
>> Sovereignty
>>
>>     2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>>
>>     3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>>
>>     4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>>
>>
>>     These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a  
>> consensus or
> a
>>     rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
>>     the IGF
>>     secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
>>
>>     Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these  
>> proposals,
> as
>>     they stand...
>>
>>     While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be  
>> made,
> they
>>     should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>>
>>     In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in  
>> case of a
>>     'no'
>>     vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus,  
>> taking into
>>     consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     Parminder
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
>>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
>>
>>     All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki,  
>> William
>>     Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on.  
>> We plan
>>     to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and
>>     suggestions, on all aspects.
>>           -- Bret
>>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>     1.      Name of proposed workshop
>>     The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>>     2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop  
>> theme
>>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>>     The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises  
>> some
>>     unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case  
>> of a
>>     British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the  
>> Bahamas,
>
>>     selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded  
>> by a
>>     registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US
>>     embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another  
>> landmark
>>     case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale  
>> of nazi
>>     memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content  
>> cases there
>
>>     are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer  
>> issues,
>>     cybercrime, and intellectual property.
>>     This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing  
>> national
>
>>     jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where  
>> multiple
>>     normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,
>>     contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case
>>     studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various
>>     approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for  
>> Internet
>
>>     governance, international law, national sovereignty,  
>> democracy, and
>>     human rights and fundamental freedoms.
>>     The workshop also explores the implications for Internet  
>> governance
>>     where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues,  
>> and how
>
>>     default unilateral action in the absence of structural  
>> alternatives
>>     can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>>     3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists  
>> you are
>>     planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and  
>> whether
>>     you have approached them about their willingness to  
>> participate in
>>     proposed workshop.
>>     NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have  
>> no more
>
>>     than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of  
>> speakers.
>>     •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
>>     Council of
>>     Europe
>>     •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
>>     International/CPTech, USA
>>     •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights,  
>> Europe
>>     •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart,  
>> Collins &
>>     Kneafsey, LLP USA
>>     •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
>>     Australia
>>     •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
>>     Development
>>     Studies, Switzerland
>>     Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various
>>     perspectives on specific case studies.
>>     Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>>     •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
>>     (off-line and
>>     on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome  
>> II,
>>     Convention on TV without Frontiers,
>>     •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
>>     E-commerce
>>     directive
>>     •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
>>     implementation
>>     activities
>>     •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and  
>> hotlines,
>>     blocking
>>     (cf. Pakistan case)
>>     •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
>>     agreements
>>     4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop  
>> and their
>
>>     affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you  
>> will take
>>     steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
>>     diversity and gender balance.
>>     -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil  
>> society)
>>     -       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental  
>> organization)
>>     -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>>     -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil
>>     society)
>>     -       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
>>     Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,
>>     Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g.  
>> OSCE,
>>     OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP  
>> associations,
>
>>     newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social  
>> networking
>>     companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
>>     5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different  
>> perspectives on
>>     the
>>     issues under discussion?
>>     Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a
>>     comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be
>>     updated later).
>>     6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues  
>> relating
>>     to
>>     Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms  
>> with the
>>     Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>>     The first and foremost need for global Internet governance
>>     arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of  
>> the
>>     Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only  
>> related
>>     to critical Internet resources management, but also to the  
>> circulation
>
>>     of content and data and to the protection of the general
>>     communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and  
>> sovereignty
>>     issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance
>>     discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national  
>> legislations,
>>     and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions,  
>> alternative
>>     methods to State regulations are more and more considered,  
>> promoted
>>     and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to  
>> explore and
>>     discuss these alternatives.
>>     TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>>     7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops  
>> you
>>     have
>>     organized in the past.
>>     The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other  
>> sponsors have
>>     organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated  
>> later)
>>     8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year?  
>> Which one?
>>     Did
>>     you submit a workshop report?
>>     Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>>     9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>>     under ?
>>     •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>>     •       Arrangements for Internet governance
>>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>     From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
>>     Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
>>
>>
>>     Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two  
>> requests we
>>     are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this  
>> list.
>>     1. Name of proposed workshop
>>     The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>>
>>     2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>>     ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain  
>> name
>>     system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
>>     through a
>>     Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009.  
>> The JPA
>>     and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became  
>> known as
>>     "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that  
>> it is
>>     committed to "completing the transition" to private sector
> coordination
>>     of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the  
>> JPA.
>>     During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it  
>> also
>>     strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was  
>> supported by
> some
>>     stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
>>     accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
>>     This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced  
>> exploration
> of
>>     whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight,  
>> and if
> so
>>     what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it.
> Panelists
>>     will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's  
>> status and
>>     various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on  
>> how to
> make
>>     changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the  
>> status
> quo
>>     will also be represented.
>>
>>     3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>>     planning
>>     to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether  
>> you have
>>     you approached them about their willingness to participate in  
>> proposed
>>     workshop.
>>
>>     ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
>>     IGP: Milton Mueller
>>     Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy  
>> Director,
>>     International Institute for
>>     Government of Canada
>>     Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
>>     Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
>>     <civil society representative selected by IGC>
>>     Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
>>     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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
>>     Governance
>>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
>>
>>     Dear all
>>
>>     A working group comprised of the following folk have worked  
>> hard to
>>     draft a proposal on:
>>
>>     A rights agenda for internet goernance
>>
>>     The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
>>     Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola,  
>> Robin
>>     Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and  
>> myself.
>>     I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the  
>> bill or
>>     rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i  
>> may
>>     have made in that list..)
>>
>>     It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
>>     that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
>>     Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to  
>> the IGF
>>     Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact  
>> of the
>>     IGF process.
>>
>>     Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your  
>> comments
>>     in relation to
>>
>>     - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
>>     - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
>>     - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
>>     - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
>>     would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
>>
>>     we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and  
>> take
>>     it from there..
>>
>>     thanks everyone
>>
>>     karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>     To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>     Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate  
>> of the
> IGF
>>     Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
>>
>>     A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks,  
>> Baudouin
>>     Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work  
>> on a
>>     proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate  
>> of the
>>     IGF".
>>     Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to  
>> consider
>>     this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed  
>> to), it is
>
>>     presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the
>>     caucus is required before 30 April.
>>     Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
>>     possible.  Thank you!
>>     --- begins ---
>>     Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
>>     Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same  
>> theme, 'The
>>     role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
>>     workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
>>     mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for  
>> regular self-
>>     appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a  
>> ‘periodic
>>     review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
>>     Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the  
>> same
>>     title during IGF, Hyderabad.
>>     The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set  
>> out in
>>     general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
>>     particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However  
>> since the
>>     conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this
>>     general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put  
>> forward
>>     and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some  
>> believe
>>     that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been  
>> overlooked
>
>>     or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the
>>     contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of
>>     those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for  
>> discussion
>>     into something more.
>>     Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5  
>> year
>>     term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
>>     reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
>>     (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
>>     mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance  
>> corrections are
>>     needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
>>     (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010  
>> arrangements for
>>     the IGF, if one is at all needed.
>>     There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
>>     substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include
>>     topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or  
>> more
>>     focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative  
>> program for
>>     Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis  
>> fulfillment of
>>     the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of  
>> discussion.
>>     Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized  
>> structure’ it
>>     will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized  
>> beyond
>>     the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by  
>> exploring
>>     IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which  
>> will
>>     inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and
>>     working group working on important issues contributing to the
>>     proceedings of the annual event.
>>     --
>>     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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **be as a well......sure and limitless....
>> but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
>> **
>> **
>> *
>>
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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  Tue Apr 29 13:04:15 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:04:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC799@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC78E@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <B32F0214-44C6-45FB-8ED9-4B98D94DA532@ras.eu.org> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC799@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <04A262A3-8A11-49EF-937D-B727EE3A6E15@ras.eu.org>


Le 29 avr. 08 à 18:02, Milton L Mueller a écrit :
>> If so, then it seems that IGC is the main organizer of 3 out
>> of the 4
>> workshops (transboundary, rights agenda, IGF role and mandate) and
>> would submit them subject to consensus reaching, while IGP is the
>> main organizer of the "internationalization" workshop, will submit
>> it, mentioning IGC co-sponsorship.
>> This would mean that actually IGC is making 3 workshop proposals as
>> main organizers, not 4, and is co-sponsoring 1 as for now.
>>
>> Do we all share this understanding?
>
> This is fine with me, but I don't think the difference in status  
> you are
> trying to establish is valid.

I'm not trying to do so (neither a difference, nor a hierarchy, BTW).  
I'm just observing that the other 3 workshops have been discussed  
inside the caucus, including with regards to co-sponsorship and  
especially potential speakers. This is not the case for this one (and  
I've already said that it's partly because IGC hasn't been able to  
provide inputs in time).

> I suspect that APC is in the same position
> with respect to the rights workshop that IGP is in with respect to the
> JPA WS.

This is not what is written in the "rights workshop" proposal. This  
has been made explicit: co-sponsors are " Civil Society Internet  
Governance Caucus, supported by ITForChange, Telecommunities Canada,  
Bill of Rights Coalition; Association For Progressive Communications"

> And it may be that others are in the same position on the other
> proposals.

I don't think so.

> Unless Parminder or the other co-coordinator of IGC has
> actually established a login account for all the other workshops,  
> there
> is no real difference.

The difference it makes is in the workshop orientation, choice of  
panelists, choice of co-sponsors, etc. As well as how a proposal is  
perceived by IGF Secretariat/MAG, in case they are going to use some  
"quotas" in the selection process. It's also important in terms of  
activity/reports of constituencies organizing workshops, reports to  
the plenary sessions, written reports to the IGF, etc. Finally, it  
will make a difference in case a proposal is NOT selected: e.g. let's  
say no workshop submitted by IGC is accepted, we would certainly draw  
some conclusions. So, there are many reasons why it's good to now who  
is the main convenor.

This is also why I'm of the opinion that Parminder, in his capacity  
of IGC coordinator, should submit himself IGC workshops and be the  
main contact for these proposals.

But yes, in the end and apart from these considerations, a workshop  
is a workshop: some people discussing some topic.

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

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


From maxsenges at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 13:33:33 2008
From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:33:33 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <48174414.3090301@wzb.eu>
References: <444812.67762.qm@web54303.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	 <48174414.3090301@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <4d976d8e0804291033u14d05e50w3829a2387a215deb@mail.gmail.com>

I also support all 4 proposals.

Regarding the Rights Agenda workshop, I'd like to share that the IBR DC is
preparing an additional workshop proposal which deals with the
practicalities of including Rights in Internet Governance. (
http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?mainstreaming_human_rights_in_the_work_of_the_dynamic_coalitions
)

IMHO the proposed workshop on the Agenda is meant to bring all the folks
interested in Rights together, map the field (synergies and hot topics)  and
start working on a shared agenda.

Max

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
> I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the submission.
> jeanette
>
> shaila mistry wrote:
>
> > "Yes" to all four workshops
> > Shaila Rao Mistry
> >
> > */Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
> >
> >
> >    Hi all
> >
> >    Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that
> > IGC
> >    proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
> >
> >    1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> >
> >    2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
> >
> >    3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
> >
> >    4. The role and mandate of the IGF
> >
> >
> >    These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus
> > or a
> >    rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
> >    the IGF
> >    secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
> >
> >    Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals,
> > as
> >    they stand...
> >
> >    While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made,
> > they
> >    should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
> >
> >    In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
> >    'no'
> >    vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking
> > into
> >    consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
> >
> >    Thanks
> >
> >    Parminder
> >    ____________________________________________________________
> >    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >    To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >    For all list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >    From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
> >    To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >    Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
> >    Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
> >
> >    All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William
> >    Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan
> >  to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and    suggestions,
> > on all aspects.
> >          -- Bret
> >    - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> >    1.      Name of proposed workshop
> >    The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
> >    2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
> >    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
> >    The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some
> >  unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a
> >  British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,
> >  selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a
> >  registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US    embargo
> > against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark    case was the
> > French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi    memorabilia, but
> > but apart from these high profile content cases there    are many examples
> > in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,    cybercrime, and
> > intellectual property.
> >    This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing
> > national    jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where
> > multiple    normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,
> >  contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case    studies,
> > this workshop will look at the implications of various    approaches to
> > resolving these issues and the implications for Internet    governance,
> > international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and    human rights and
> > fundamental freedoms.
> >    The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance
> >  where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how
> >  default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives    can
> > lead to de facto Internet governance.
> >    3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
> >    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether
> >  you have approached them about their willingness to participate in
> >  proposed workshop.
> >    NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no
> > more    than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
> >    •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
> >    Council of    Europe
> >    •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
> >    International/CPTech, USA
> >    •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
> >    •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &
> >  Kneafsey, LLP USA
> >    •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
> >    Australia
> >    •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
> >    Development    Studies, Switzerland
> >    Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various
> >  perspectives on specific case studies.
> >    Themes to be discussed by speakers:
> >    •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
> >    (off-line and    on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier
> > television, Rome II,    Convention on TV without Frontiers,
> >    •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
> >    E-commerce    directive
> >    •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
> >    implementation    activities
> >    •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,
> >    blocking    (cf. Pakistan case)
> >    •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
> >    agreements
> >    4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and
> > their    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will
> > take    steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
> >  diversity and gender balance.
> >    -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
> >    -       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
> >    -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
> >    -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil
> >    society)
> >    -       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
> >    Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,
> >  Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,
> >  OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,
> >  newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking
> >  companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
> >    5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on
> >    the    issues under discussion?
> >    Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a
> >  comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be
> >  updated later).
> >    6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating
> >    to    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with
> > the    Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
> >    The first and foremost need for global Internet governance
> >  arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the
> >  Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related    to
> > critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation    of
> > content and data and to the protection of the general    communications
> > infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty    issues are thus at
> > the heart of global Internet governance    discussions. Given the difficulty
> > to harmonize national legislations,    and given the issue of the competence
> > of jurisdictions, alternative    methods to State regulations are more and
> > more considered, promoted    and implemented. It is the very aim of this
> > workshop to explore and    discuss these alternatives.
> >    TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
> >    7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you
> >    have    organized in the past.
> >    The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have
> >    organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
> >    8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?
> >    Did    you submit a workshop report?
> >    Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
> >    9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
> >    under ?
> >    •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
> >    •       Arrangements for Internet governance
> >    - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
> >    ____________________________________________________________
> >    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >         governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >    To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >         governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >    For all list information and functions, see:
> >         http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >    From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> >    To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >    Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
> >    Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
> >
> >
> >    Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests
> > we
> >    are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.
> >    1. Name of proposed workshop    The Future of ICANN: After the JPA,
> > What?
> >        2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
> >    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
> >    ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
> >    system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
> >    through a
> >    Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
> >    and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
> >    "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
> >    committed to "completing the transition" to private sector
> > coordination
> >    of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
> >    During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
> >    strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by
> > some
> >    stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
> >    accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
> >    This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration
> > of
> >    whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if
> > so
> >    what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it.
> > Panelists
> >    will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
> >    various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to
> > make
> >    changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status
> > quo
> >    will also be represented.        3. Provide the names and
> > affiliations of the panellists you are
> >    planning
> >    to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
> >    you approached them about their willingness to participate in
> > proposed
> >    workshop.        ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
> >    IGP: Milton Mueller
> >    Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
> >    International Institute for
> >    Government of Canada
> >    Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
> >    Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
> >    <civil society representative selected by IGC>
> >    Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
> >    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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
> >    To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >    Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
> >    Governance
> >    Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
> >
> >    Dear all
> >
> >    A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to
> >    draft a proposal on:
> >
> >    A rights agenda for internet goernance
> >
> >    The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
> >    Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin
> >    Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself.
> >    I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or
> >    rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may
> >    have made in that list..)
> >
> >    It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
> >    that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
> >    Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF
> >    Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the
> >    IGF process.
> >
> >    Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments
> >    in relation to
> >
> >    - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
> >    - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
> >    - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
> >    - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
> >    would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
> >
> >    we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take
> >    it from there..
> >
> >    thanks everyone
> >
> >    karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >    ____________________________________________________________
> >    You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >    To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
> >    To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> >    Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the
> > IGF
> >    Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
> >
> >    A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin
> >    Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a
> >  proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the
> >  IGF".
> >    Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider
> >    this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is
> >  presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the    caucus
> > is required before 30 April.
> >    Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
> >  possible.  Thank you!
> >    --- begins ---
> >    Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
> >    Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The
> >    role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
> >  workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
> >    mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular
> > self-
> >    appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a 'periodic
> >  review' is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
> >  Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same    title
> > during IGF, Hyderabad.
> >    The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in
> >    general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
> >  particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the
> >  conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this    general
> > statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward    and
> > continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe    that there
> > are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked    or minimised
> > in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the    contrary, that the IGF
> > must contain the overreaching ambitions of    those who would transform it
> > from a non-binding forum for discussion    into something more.
> >    Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year
> >  term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
> >  reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
> >    (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
> >  mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are
> >  needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
> >    (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for
> >    the IGF, if one is at all needed.
> >    There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
> >  substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include    topics
> > earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more    focused
> > discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for    Hyderabad).
> > The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of    the mandate of
> > the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.    Since paragraph 73
> > also speaks about a 'decentralized structure' it    will also be worth
> > exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond    the present structure
> > of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring    IGF like structures at the
> > regional and national levels (which will    inter aliafulfill part of the
> > requirements of paragraph 80) and    working group working on important
> > issues contributing to the    proceedings of the annual event.
> >    --    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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **be as a well......sure and limitless....
> > but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
> > ** ** *
> >
> >
> >  ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
-------------------------------------------------
"I meant to tell mankind . . . to attempt a quixotic adventure with no
resources
beyond their native strength and sagacity. I had done it myself and found
not
only that the pearl of great price was worth far more than I possessed, but
that
the very perils and privations of the Quest were themselves my dearest
memories.
I was certain of this at least: that nothing in the world except this was
worth
doing."
- Aleister Crowley, The Confessions

-------------------------------------------------
Dr. Max Senges
Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar
UOC Research Associate
Freelance Consultant

98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025

US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826

www.maxsenges.com
www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/be5cecda/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 puna_gb at yahoo.com  Tue Apr 29 13:35:37 2008
From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:35:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <011701c8aa0c$c2ee0f50$6401a8c0@GINGERLAPTOP>
Message-ID: <100465.62705.qm@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/12f63e48/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 yjpark21 at gmail.com  Tue Apr 29 14:46:56 2008
From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:46:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal on Access to Local Culture and
 Language
Message-ID: <a74d36b0804291146q6b1b429bu35a5db64fbd0f7ac@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

This is a work-in-progess IGF workshop proposal on Multilingualizing
Internet Gateways on the Internet for your consideration and feedback.

Thank you,
YJ

=========================================
1.      Name of proposed workshop: Access to Local Culture and Language
(ALCL)

2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.

The global Internet as of today recognizes only ASCII addresses as domain
names. But we are in a transition to Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
This transition has evolved into a series of political challenges such as
creating IDNs associated with Country Code Top Level Domain Names
("ccTLDs"), developing policies on IDN dispute resolution, IDN whois
records, and competition among incumbent registries. Who sets the standards?
How many IDNs should be allocated for each country? Should incumbent
registries get the same top level domain ("TLD") in new scripts?

This workshop explores how to resolve such political challenges. The concept
of multilingual road signs on the global Internet was first proposed to
ICANN in 2000. ICANN is about to implement the IDNs. Why did it take so long
to reach a global consensus on multilingual domain names?

Those who believe in the principle of global compatibility of the Internet
were afraid that the Internet would become a tower of Babel. They resisted
multilingual gateways to protect global compatibility on the Internet. Those
who believe in the principle of access to local culture and language on the
Internet kept fighting to build multilingual gateways. Tensions also arise
among those who use same language and character sets when it comes to a
decision-making process for the specific language and character sets. The
Government of China believes it has a sole authority to decide matters about
Chinese gateways on the global Internet, whilst stakeholders of Chinese are
all around the world. India has another challenge. The Government of India
recognizes 23 official languages including Hindi and English. Everybody
struggles at this stage how to handle this complicated challenge ahead.

3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
have approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
workshop.

   - Tinwee Tan (Civil Society, National University of Singapore, MINC)
   -- Singapore (Confirmed)
   - ____________ (Civil Society, WFEO CIC) -- Tunisia (under
   consultation)
   - China government (Gov't) -- China (under consultation)
   - Vasil'ev Vladimir Mikhailovich,Head of Department, Ministry for
   Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation
   (Gov't) -- Russia (Confirmed)
   - Yoav Keren... (Private Sector, GNSO/ICANN) -- Israel  --- Domain the
   Net, Member of ICANN President's Advisory Commitee on IDN, Member of the
   ICANN GNSO IDN Policy Working Group, Israel Ministry of Communications
   Representative on IDN to ICANN (Confirmed)
   - ____________ (International Organization, ICANN or ISOC) -- USA
   (under consultation)
   - Subbiah (Private Sector, i-DNS.net) -- Singapore/USA (Confirmed)

4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
gender balance.

   - Tinwee Tan (National University of Signapore, Multilingual Internet
   Names Consortium)  Civil Society, Singapore, Asia
   - Tijani Ben Jamma (WFEO Committee on Information Communication,
   Vice-Chair) Civil Society, Tunisia, Africa
   - Subbiah (i-DNS.net) Private Sector, Singapore/USA, Asia/North
   America

5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
issues under discussion?

Yes. Visions on multilingualization on the Internet will be explored to
provide a comprehensive coverage of the challenges in materializing "Access
to Local Culture and Language" on the Global Internet.

6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.

The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, adopted at the Tunis Phase of
WSIS, highlights the importance of multilingualism for bridging the digital
divide.

   - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C2
   - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C3
   - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C8

7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
organized in the past.

Not applicable. We would like to urge IGF secretariat to pay more attention
to the proposals from newly participating members of the forum.

8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you
submit a workshop report?

Not applicable.

9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?

   - Multiligualization
   - Critical Internet Resources
   - Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
   - Arrangements for Internet Governance

=========================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/5d663938/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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Tue Apr 29 15:02:04 2008
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:02:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
Message-ID: <s817388a.076@gwia203.syr.edu>

also yes to all

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>> ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com 04/29/08 9:34 AM >>>
yes

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> At 8:36 AM +0800 4/29/08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> > On 29/04/2008, at 12:21 AM, Parminder wrote:
> >
> > Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these
proposals, as
> > > they stand...
> > >
> >
> > I vote "yes" to each of the proposals.
> >
>
>
> Yes to all.
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> --
> > Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
> > Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
> > host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>



-- 
-- 
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
*Respectful Interfaces* Programme.
Individual e-post.
For I.D. only: Communications Coordination Committee for the United
Nations
(CCC/UN) [ Civsci NGO].
International Disability Caucus, National Disability Party, United
Nations
education, values, and technical committees;
Analyst, author, inventor in computing fields ARPANet forward.
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).

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 29 22:27:12 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:57:12 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <20080430022729.089F667893@smtp1.electricembers.net>

Sorry, Bill and others who may have raised points that I may have not been
able to address. I am very busy in an ITfC organized workshop on 'ICTs in
Indian education policy' in New delhi, though I have dutifully kept an eye
on all emails to the list. 

 

Aslo, as you will all understand, at this point of the consensus process, I
would not like to get into too many discussions :-)

 

 

However since Bill asks for some clarification before he could say yes or no
(though I note he has said yes to all in a later email) I thought I should
clarify.

 

> "---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just access?),
its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new rights, etc.  

 

Yes, that how it is. 

 

 

Also I will clean up the proposals to my best ability, if the consensus is
reached, in the little time I will have today before submitting, but if I
cant, I think they will let us do it in the next 2-3 days, and that MAG
wouldn't start to see the proposals immediately. I will submit three
proposals ands will ask Milton to submit the post-JPA one, that is, to
repeat, if the consensus carries. 

 

Best Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:56 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops

 

Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this.  If we could clarify something before having to say yes or
no, I'd appreciate it.

Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the questions
that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 and 9?  Of are you
thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand for all nine,
irrespective of what state it's in and whether it's ready for prime time?
If it is the latter, maybe others have a different view, but I wouldn't
think it would be a procedural violation of the consensus call to simply
edit out some of the various process comments being exchanged among WG
members within these docs, like "NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means
that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair" and "it would be
good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as co-sponsors -
i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - brazil, uk, australia,
others?" and "we need to work on thisk, but for sure it will if we get the
right people as speakers" and lists of people/orgs that might (or might not)
be contacted about cosponsoring/speaking...etc.  It would be odd to me
anyway to include such material in something that will be reviewed by the
MAG.   


A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, given that
I've missed the deadline.

I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the precise focus of the
rights proposal ("What is lacking is a rights framework for Internet
governance that can address these issues and conflicts at each 'layer' of
the Internet environment, from the critical Internet resources of
infrastructure and code through to the content and applications that they
support"---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just
access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new
rights, etc.  

On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in terms of
this binary: "Some believe  that there are elements of the IGF's mandate
that have been overlooked  or minimised in its operation to date.  Others
maintain, to the  contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching
ambitions of  those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for
discussion  into something more.?"  Some MAGites et al might read this as
suggesting that those who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked
by definition want to "transform it from a non-binding forum," which is not
representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm bells
and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being 'controversial'
etc.  BTW, this needs to list at least one or two cosponsors, no?  Has the
WG reached out to anyone?

Best,

Bill

On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


Hi all

Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF


These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.  

Thanks

Parminder 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/d5c04453/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 29 23:06:22 2008
From: lists at privaterra.info (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:06:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
Message-ID: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info>


I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom to  
some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is far  
too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.

So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls  
possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and mailing  
list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC  
nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and  
effort needed.

I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to  
complete remaining tasks.


regards

Robert Guerra




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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 30 01:35:52 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:35:52 -0700
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e0804291033u14d05e50w3829a2387a215deb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bb01c8aa84$0e5ab610$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>

Max,
 
Maybe I'm missing it, but in what you've pointed to I don't see where the
issues which we have been discussing here around the rubric "Right to the
Internet" are included.
 
MG
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] 
Sent: April 29, 2008 10:34 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
Cc: Parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops

  
I also support all 4 proposals.

Regarding the Rights Agenda workshop, I'd like to share that the IBR DC is
preparing an additional workshop proposal which deals with the
practicalities of including Rights in Internet Governance.
(http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?mainstreaming_h
uman_rights_in_the_work_of_the_dynamic_coalitions)

IMHO the proposed workshop on the Agenda is meant to bring all the folks
interested in Rights together, map the field (synergies and hot topics)  and
start working on a shared agenda.

Max


On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:


A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the submission.
jeanette

shaila mistry wrote:


"Yes" to all four workshops
Shaila Rao Mistry

*/Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:


   Hi all

   Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
   proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.

   1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

   2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

   3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

   4. The role and mandate of the IGF


   These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
   rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
   the IGF
   secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.

   Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
   they stand...

   While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
   should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

   In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
   'no'
   vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
   consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.

   Thanks

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

   For all list information and functions, see:
   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
   From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
   Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
   Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530

   All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William
Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan    to
submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and    suggestions, on
all aspects.
         -- Bret
   - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
   1.      Name of proposed workshop
   The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
   2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
   The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some
unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a
British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,
selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a
registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US    embargo
against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark    case was the
French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi    memorabilia, but
but apart from these high profile content cases there    are many examples
in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,    cybercrime, and
intellectual property.
   This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national
jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple
normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,
contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case    studies,
this workshop will look at the implications of various    approaches to
resolving these issues and the implications for Internet    governance,
international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and    human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
   The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance
where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how
default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives    can
lead to de facto Internet governance.
   3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether    you
have approached them about their willingness to participate in    proposed
workshop.
   NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more
than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
   •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
   Council of    Europe
   •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
   International/CPTech, USA
   •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
   •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &
Kneafsey, LLP USA
   •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
   Australia
   •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
   Development    Studies, Switzerland
   Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various
perspectives on specific case studies.
   Themes to be discussed by speakers:
   •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
   (off-line and    on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier
television, Rome II,    Convention on TV without Frontiers,
   •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
   E-commerce    directive
   •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
   implementation    activities
   •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,
   blocking    (cf. Pakistan case)
   •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
   agreements
   4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
diversity and gender balance.
   -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
   -       The Council of Europe – TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
   -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
   -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) – TBC (Civil
   society)
   -       Ian Peter and Associates – TBC (Private sector)
   Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,    Netherlands,
...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,    OCDE,...), other
private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,    newspaper
associations, registrars, search engine/social networking    companies,
...); other civil society constituencies.
   5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on
   the    issues under discussion?
   Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a
comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be    updated
later).
   6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating
   to    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the
Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
   The first and foremost need for global Internet governance
arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the
Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related    to
critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation    of
content and data and to the protection of the general    communications
infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty    issues are thus at
the heart of global Internet governance    discussions. Given the difficulty
to harmonize national legislations,    and given the issue of the competence
of jurisdictions, alternative    methods to State regulations are more and
more considered, promoted    and implemented. It is the very aim of this
workshop to explore and    discuss these alternatives.
   TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
   7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you
   have    organized in the past.
   The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have
organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
   8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?
   Did    you submit a workshop report?
   Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
   9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
   under ?
   •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
   •       Arrangements for Internet governance
   - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
   ____________________________________________________________
   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
        governance at lists.cpsr.org
   To be removed from the list, send any message to:
        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
   For all list information and functions, see:
        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
   From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
   Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
   Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530


   Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we
   are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.
   1. Name of proposed workshop    The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
       2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
   including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
   ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
   system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
   through a
   Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
   and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
   "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
   committed to "completing the transition" to private sector coordination
   of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
   During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
   strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by some
   stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
   accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
   This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration of
   whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if so
   what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it. Panelists
   will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
   various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to make
   changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status quo
   will also be represented.        3. Provide the names and affiliations of
the panellists you are
   planning
   to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
   you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
   workshop.        ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
   IGP: Milton Mueller
   Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
   International Institute for
   Government of Canada
   Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
   Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
   <civil society representative selected by IGC>
   Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
   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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
   Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
   Governance
   Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530

   Dear all

   A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to
   draft a proposal on:

   A rights agenda for internet goernance

   The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
   Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin
   Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself.
   I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or
   rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may
   have made in that list..)

   It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
   that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
   Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF
   Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the
   IGF process.

   Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments
   in relation to

   - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
   - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
   - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
   - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
   would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)

   we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take
   it from there..

   thanks everyone

   karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)








   ____________________________________________________________
   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   governance at lists.cpsr.org
   To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
   Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
   Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530

   A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin
Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a
proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the
IGF".
   Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider
this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is
presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the    caucus
is required before 30 April.
   Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
possible.  Thank you!
   --- begins ---
   Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
   Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The
role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
   mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
   appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a 'periodic
review' is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same    title
during IGF, Hyderabad.
   The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in
general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the
conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this    general
statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward    and
continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe    that there
are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked    or minimised
in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the    contrary, that the IGF
must contain the overreaching ambitions of    those who would transform it
from a non-binding forum for discussion    into something more.
   Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year
term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
   (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are
needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
   (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for
the IGF, if one is at all needed.
   There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include    topics
earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more    focused
discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for    Hyderabad).
The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of    the mandate of
the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.    Since paragraph 73
also speaks about a 'decentralized structure' it    will also be worth
exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond    the present structure
of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring    IGF like structures at the
regional and national levels (which will    inter aliafulfill part of the
requirements of paragraph 80) and    working group working on important
issues contributing to the    proceedings of the annual event.
   --    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




**be as a well......sure and limitless....

but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
** ** *




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

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





-- 
-------------------------------------------------
"I meant to tell mankind . . . to attempt a quixotic adventure with no
resources
beyond their native strength and sagacity. I had done it myself and found
not
only that the pearl of great price was worth far more than I possessed, but
that
the very perils and privations of the Quest were themselves my dearest
memories.
I was certain of this at least: that nothing in the world except this was
worth
doing."
- Aleister Crowley, The Confessions 

-------------------------------------------------
Dr. Max Senges
Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar
UOC Research Associate 
Freelance Consultant

98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025

US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826

www.maxsenges.com
www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
------------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080429/d43471f6/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  Wed Apr 30 04:43:10 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:43:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops-Rights To/On the Internet
In-Reply-To: <A1547C77-98C4-4C7C-9F5B-AB68E84F6C89@ras.eu.org>
References: <031501c8aa17$8db52d90$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
 <A1547C77-98C4-4C7C-9F5B-AB68E84F6C89@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <20080430084332.6CD6A429373@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi meryem and all

thanks michael for taking the proposal through the caucus concensus process..

as michael noted, i was in a two day meeting all 
day/night - which was pretty relevant to what 
we're talking about here..  the freedom of 
expression initiative - which is developing a 
principle/value framework rooted in human 
rights  (primarily article19, but others) - lisa 
horner, who works with global partners, the 
organisation leading the process, was involved in the workshop discussions

http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/

we missed your input and experience meryem, so 
hope you will have time to comment once we get past today's deadlines..

karen

At 17:49 29/04/2008, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>Michael,
>
>this is to answer your mail below and the message you sent earlier on
>this issue.
>I've made clear that I won't oppose that IGC propose this workshop,
>and moreover I've made clear that this is because I haven't been able
>to take to the discussions in due time.
>
>So you can count my comments as a "yes", or as an abstention, but
>certainly not as a "no".
>
>I simply made these comments not to reopen any discussion *now*, but
>in view of possible further refinements of the proposal, after its
>submission.
>As a matter of fact, I note from your new subject line that you seem
>to also think there is a difference between "rights to" and "rights
>on" the Internet. What I was saying is that the 
>current formulation/ framing was mixing both, 
>and, in my opinion, this is inappropriate
>and counterproductive.
>
>I'll be happy to join dicussions, after submission deadline, on
>refining this proposal.
>
>Best,
>Meryem
>
>Le 29 avr. 08 à 18:39, Michael Gurstein a écrit :
>
>>
>>Karen, my co-convenor on the "Rights" Workshop is travelling I
>>think, at the
>>moment...
>>
>>In my earlier note in this thread I didn't mean to imply that the
>>formulation of the "Rights" Workshop was not a work in progress where
>>additional inputs would not be welcomed but rather that it was a
>>bit late to
>>re-open the discussion prior to the April 30 deadline.
>>
>>So far, contributors to the consensus on the current formulation of
>>the
>>Workshop (apart from Karen/APC, Parminder and myself) have included
>>Max
>>Senges,  Konstantinos Komaitis, Robert Guerra, Max Senges, Robin
>>Gross, Lisa
>>Horner, vittorio Bertola and linda misek-falkoff. (apologies if
>>I've missed
>>anyone).
>>
>>Certainly more contributors are welcomed and we can either continue
>>with a
>>thread on the full list or, as we did earlier develop an inclusive
>>side
>>discussion.
>>
>>MG
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>>Sent: April 29, 2008 8:52 AM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Cc: Parminder
>>Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
>>
>>
>>A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
>>I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the
>>submission.
>>jeanette
>>
>>shaila mistry wrote:
>>>"Yes" to all four workshops
>>>Shaila Rao Mistry
>>>
>>>*/Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Hi all
>>>
>>>     Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals,
>>>that
>>IGC
>>>     proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>>>
>>>     1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and
>>>Sovereignty
>>>
>>>     2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>>>
>>>     3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>>>
>>>     4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>>>
>>>
>>>     These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a
>>>consensus or
>>a
>>>     rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
>>>     the IGF
>>>     secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
>>>
>>>     Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these
>>>proposals,
>>as
>>>     they stand...
>>>
>>>     While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be
>>>made,
>>they
>>>     should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>>>
>>>     In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in
>>>case of a
>>>     'no'
>>>     vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus,
>>>taking into
>>>     consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
>>>
>>>     Thanks
>>>
>>>     Parminder
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>     From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
>>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
>>>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
>>>
>>>     All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki,
>>>William
>>>     Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on.
>>>We plan
>>>     to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and
>>>     suggestions, on all aspects.
>>>           -- Bret
>>>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>>     1.      Name of proposed workshop
>>>     The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>>>     2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop
>>>theme
>>>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>>>     The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises
>>>some
>>>     unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case
>>>of a
>>>     British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the
>>>Bahamas,
>>
>>>     selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded
>>>by a
>>>     registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US
>>>     embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another
>>>landmark
>>>     case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale
>>>of nazi
>>>     memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content
>>>cases there
>>
>>>     are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer
>>>issues,
>>>     cybercrime, and intellectual property.
>>>     This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing
>>>national
>>
>>>     jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where
>>>multiple
>>>     normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,
>>>     contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case
>>>     studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various
>>>     approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for
>>>Internet
>>
>>>     governance, international law, national sovereignty,
>>>democracy, and
>>>     human rights and fundamental freedoms.
>>>     The workshop also explores the implications for Internet
>>>governance
>>>     where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues,
>>>and how
>>
>>>     default unilateral action in the absence of structural
>>>alternatives
>>>     can lead to de facto Internet governance.
>>>     3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists
>>>you are
>>>     planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and
>>>whether
>>>     you have approached them about their willingness to
>>>participate in
>>>     proposed workshop.
>>>     NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have
>>>no more
>>
>>>     than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of
>>>speakers.
>>>     •       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
>>>     Council of
>>>     Europe
>>>     •       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
>>>     International/CPTech, USA
>>>     •       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights,
>>>Europe
>>>     •       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart,
>>>Collins &
>>>     Kneafsey, LLP USA
>>>     •       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
>>>     Australia
>>>     •       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
>>>     Development
>>>     Studies, Switzerland
>>>     Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various
>>>     perspectives on specific case studies.
>>>     Themes to be discussed by speakers:
>>>     •       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
>>>     (off-line and
>>>     on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome
>>>II,
>>>     Convention on TV without Frontiers,
>>>     •       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
>>>     E-commerce
>>>     directive
>>>     •       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
>>>     implementation
>>>     activities
>>>     •       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and
>>>hotlines,
>>>     blocking
>>>     (cf. Pakistan case)
>>>     •       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
>>>     agreements
>>>     4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop
>>>and their
>>
>>>     affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you
>>>will take
>>>     steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
>>>     diversity and gender balance.
>>>     -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil
>>>society)
>>>     -       The Council of Europe ­ TBC (Intergovernmental
>>>organization)
>>>     -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
>>>     -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) ­ TBC (Civil
>>>     society)
>>>     -       Ian Peter and Associates ­ TBC (Private sector)
>>>     Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,
>>>     Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g.
>>>OSCE,
>>>     OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP
>>>associations,
>>
>>>     newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social
>>>networking
>>>     companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
>>>     5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different
>>>perspectives on
>>>     the
>>>     issues under discussion?
>>>     Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a
>>>     comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be
>>>     updated later).
>>>     6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues
>>>relating
>>>     to
>>>     Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms
>>>with the
>>>     Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>>>     The first and foremost need for global Internet governance
>>>     arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of
>>>the
>>>     Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only
>>>related
>>>     to critical Internet resources management, but also to the
>>>circulation
>>
>>>     of content and data and to the protection of the general
>>>     communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and
>>>sovereignty
>>>     issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance
>>>     discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national
>>>legislations,
>>>     and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions,
>>>alternative
>>>     methods to State regulations are more and more considered,
>>>promoted
>>>     and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to
>>>explore and
>>>     discuss these alternatives.
>>>     TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
>>>     7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops
>>>you
>>>     have
>>>     organized in the past.
>>>     The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other
>>>sponsors have
>>>     organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated
>>>later)
>>>     8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year?
>>>Which one?
>>>     Did
>>>     you submit a workshop report?
>>>     Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
>>>     9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
>>>     under ?
>>>     •       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>>>     •       Arrangements for Internet governance
>>>     - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>          governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>          governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     For all list information and functions, see:
>>>          http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>     From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
>>>     Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
>>>
>>>
>>>     Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two
>>>requests we
>>>     are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this
>>>list.
>>>     1. Name of proposed workshop
>>>     The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>>>
>>>     2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
>>>     including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>>>     ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain
>>>name
>>>     system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
>>>     through a
>>>     Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009.
>>>The JPA
>>>     and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became
>>>known as
>>>     "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that
>>>it is
>>>     committed to "completing the transition" to private sector
>>coordination
>>>     of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the
>>>JPA.
>>>     During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it
>>>also
>>>     strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was
>>>supported by
>>some
>>>     stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
>>>     accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
>>>     This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced
>>>exploration
>>of
>>>     whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight,
>>>and if
>>so
>>>     what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it.
>>Panelists
>>>     will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's
>>>status and
>>>     various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on
>>>how to
>>make
>>>     changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the
>>>status
>>quo
>>>     will also be represented.
>>>
>>>     3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
>>>     planning
>>>     to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether
>>>you have
>>>     you approached them about their willingness to participate in
>>>proposed
>>>     workshop.
>>>
>>>     ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
>>>     IGP: Milton Mueller
>>>     Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy
>>>Director,
>>>     International Institute for
>>>     Government of Canada
>>>     Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
>>>     Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
>>>     <civil society representative selected by IGC>
>>>     Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
>>>     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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
>>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
>>>     Governance
>>>     Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
>>>
>>>     Dear all
>>>
>>>     A working group comprised of the following folk have worked
>>>hard to
>>>     draft a proposal on:
>>>
>>>     A rights agenda for internet goernance
>>>
>>>     The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
>>>     Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola,
>>>Robin
>>>     Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and
>>>myself.
>>>     I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the
>>>bill or
>>>     rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i
>>>may
>>>     have made in that list..)
>>>
>>>     It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
>>>     that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
>>>     Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to
>>>the IGF
>>>     Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact
>>>of the
>>>     IGF process.
>>>
>>>     Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your
>>>comments
>>>     in relation to
>>>
>>>     - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
>>>     - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
>>>     - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
>>>     - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
>>>     would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
>>>
>>>     we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and
>>>take
>>>     it from there..
>>>
>>>     thanks everyone
>>>
>>>     karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>     To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
>>>     To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>     Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate
>>>of the
>>IGF
>>>     Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
>>>
>>>     A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks,
>>>Baudouin
>>>     Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work
>>>on a
>>>     proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate
>>>of the
>>>     IGF".
>>>     Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to
>>>consider
>>>     this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed
>>>to), it is
>>
>>>     presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the
>>>     caucus is required before 30 April.
>>>     Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as
>>>     possible.  Thank you!
>>>     --- begins ---
>>>     Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
>>>     Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same
>>>theme, 'The
>>>     role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first
>>>     workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
>>>     mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for
>>>regular self-
>>>     appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a
>>>‘periodic
>>>     review’ is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).
>>>     Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the
>>>same
>>>     title during IGF, Hyderabad.
>>>     The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set
>>>out in
>>>     general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,
>>>     particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However
>>>since the
>>>     conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this
>>>     general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put
>>>forward
>>>     and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some
>>>believe
>>>     that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been
>>>overlooked
>>
>>>     or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the
>>>     contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of
>>>     those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for
>>>discussion
>>>     into something more.
>>>     Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5
>>>year
>>>     term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be
>>>     reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
>>>     (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA
>>>     mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance
>>>corrections are
>>>     needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
>>>     (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010
>>>arrangements for
>>>     the IGF, if one is at all needed.
>>>     There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and
>>>     substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include
>>>     topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or
>>>more
>>>     focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative
>>>program for
>>>     Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis
>>>fulfillment of
>>>     the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of
>>>discussion.
>>>     Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a ‘decentralized
>>>structure’ it
>>>     will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized
>>>beyond
>>>     the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by
>>>exploring
>>>     IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which
>>>will
>>>     inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and
>>>     working group working on important issues contributing to the
>>>     proceedings of the annual event.
>>>     --
>>>     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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>**be as a well......sure and limitless....
>>>but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
>>>**
>>>**
>>>*
>>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, 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/20080430/7364cdc4/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  Wed Apr 30 04:45:56 2008
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:45:56 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080430022729.089F667893@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <C43BD541.11386%william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>
 <20080430022729.089F667893@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <20080430084618.7E48542928B@mail.gn.apc.org>

hi parminder

I think you should submit the prposals (as summarised below, with the 
noted exception re the IGP led proposal)

if you're going to be late, i'd suggest you send the secretariat a 
note to that effect.. i'm sure they'll understand

karen


At 03:27 30/04/2008, you wrote:
>Sorry, Bill and others who may have raised points that I may have 
>not been able to address. I am very busy in an ITfC organized 
>workshop on 'ICTs in Indian education policy' in New delhi, though I 
>have dutifully kept an eye on all emails to the list.
>
>Aslo, as you will all understand, at this point of the consensus 
>process, I would not like to get into too many discussions J
>
>
>However since Bill asks for some clarification before he could say 
>yes or no (though I note he has said yes to all in a later email) I 
>thought I should clarify.
>
> > "---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just 
> access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating 
> new rights, etc.
>
>Yes, that how it is.
>
>
>Also I will clean up the proposals to my best ability, if the 
>consensus is reached, in the little time I will have today before 
>submitting, but if I cant, I think they will let us do it in the 
>next 2-3 days, and that MAG wouldn't start to see the proposals 
>immediately. I will submit three proposals ands will ask Milton to 
>submit the post-JPA one, that is, to repeat, if the consensus carries.
>
>Best Parminder
>
>
>----------
>From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch]
>Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:56 PM
>To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
>Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
>
>Hi Parminder,
>
>Thanks for this.  If we could clarify something before having to say 
>yes or no, I'd appreciate it.
>
>Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the 
>questions that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 
>and 9?  Of are you thinking of plugging in all the material now at 
>hand for all nine, irrespective of what state it's in and whether 
>it's ready for prime time?  If it is the latter, maybe others have a 
>different view, but I wouldn't think it would be a procedural 
>violation of the consensus call to simply edit out some of the 
>various process comments being exchanged among WG members within 
>these docs, like "NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we 
>should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair" and "it would be 
>good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as 
>co-sponsors - i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - 
>brazil, uk, australia, others?" and "we need to work on thisk, but 
>for sure it will if we get the right people as speakers" and lists 
>of people/orgs that might (or might not) be contacted about 
>cosponsoring/speaking...etc.  It would be odd to me anyway to 
>include such material in something that will be reviewed by the MAG.
>
>
>A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, 
>given that I've missed the deadline.
>
>I'm still having a hard time getting my head around the precise 
>focus of the rights proposal ("What is lacking is a rights framework 
>for Internet governance that can address these issues and conflicts 
>at each 'layer' of the Internet environment, from the critical 
>Internet resources of infrastructure and code through to the content 
>and applications that they support"---so all aspects of IG to be 
>viewed as rights issues, not just access?), its connection to 
>internationally agreed HR vs creating new rights, etc.
>
>On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in 
>terms of this binary: "Some believe  that there are elements of the 
>IGF's mandate that have been overlooked  or minimised in its 
>operation to date.  Others maintain, to the  contrary, that the IGF 
>must contain the overreaching ambitions of  those who would 
>transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion  into something 
>more.?"  Some MAGites et al might read this as suggesting that those 
>who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked by definition 
>want to "transform it from a non-binding forum," which is not 
>representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm 
>bells and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being 
>'controversial' etc.  BTW, this needs to list at least one or two 
>cosponsors, no?  Has the WG reached out to anyone?
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>Hi all
>
>Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
>proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
>1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
>2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
>3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
>4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
>These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
>rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
>secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
>
>Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
>they stand...
>
>While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
>should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>
>In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
>vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
>consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
>
>Thanks
>
>Parminder
>
>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/bdb742db/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  Wed Apr 30 06:09:38 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:09:38 +0200
Subject: Deadline for MAG candidates ? Re: [governance] Stepping down as
 IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info>
References: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <2B3FA1B4-4597-4B23-ADD2-8C760D61CEAB@ras.eu.org>

Hi all,

I'm unable to find a deadline for MAG candidates nominations. Does  
anyone know when it is? We need to know if we have time to do  
anything with the rather confused current situation.

Thanks,
Meryem

Le 30 avr. 08 à 05:06, Robert Guerra a écrit :

>
> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom  
> to some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well,  
> is far too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>
> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls  
> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
> mailing list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately  
> as IGC nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy  
> and effort needed.
>
> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to  
> complete remaining tasks.
>
>
> regards
>
> Robert Guerra
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 06:57:22 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:57:22 +0900
Subject: Deadline for MAG candidates ? Re: [governance] Stepping down
In-Reply-To: <2B3FA1B4-4597-4B23-ADD2-8C760D61CEAB@ras.eu.org>
References: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info>
 <2B3FA1B4-4597-4B23-ADD2-8C760D61CEAB@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <p0624081cc43dfd52e0bb@[192.168.1.3]>

There is no formal deadline, but the secretariat 
asked for names before the end of April, earlier 
if possible.

Perhaps one of the nomcom members could write to 
Markus, ask him when he needs the names, what 
information about the nominees is needed now (or, 
what can wait.)  email <MKUMMER at unog.ch>

Best,

Adam





At 12:09 PM +0200 4/30/08, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I'm unable to find a deadline for MAG candidates 
>nominations. Does anyone know when it is? We 
>need to know if we have time to do anything with 
>the rather confused current situation.
>
>Thanks,
>Meryem
>
>Le 30 avr. 08 à 05:06, Robert Guerra a écrit :
>
>>
>>I tried best I could when I had time to work on 
>>bringing the nomcom to some kind of closure. 
>>The traffic over the last week is - well, is 
>>far too much for me to handle in this moment in 
>>time for me.
>>
>>So, having contributed my input, funds to make 
>>the conference calls possible, and technical 
>>assistance to make the nomcom wiki and mailing 
>>list possible - i respectfully resign effective 
>>immediately as IGC nomcom chair due to 
>>inability to contribute the time, energy and 
>>effort needed.
>>
>>I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses 
>>as its new chair to complete remaining tasks.
>>
>>
>>regards
>>
>>Robert Guerra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>>For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From lisa at global-partners.co.uk  Wed Apr 30 08:03:46 2008
From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:03:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <00bb01c8aa84$0e5ab610$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
References: <4d976d8e0804291033u14d05e50w3829a2387a215deb@mail.gmail.com> <00bb01c8aa84$0e5ab610$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>
Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A0086801@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local>

Hi

 

Just to clarify, the Internet Bill of Rights (IBR) Dynamic Coalition's proposal is focused specifically on exploring how 'existing' rights are relevant to the work of each of the dynamic coalitions and whether we can build some kind of commitment or agreement amongst the coalitions to 'mainstream' rights within their work.  We didn't have much time to write and share the proposal within the IBR group, so apologies for not sharing it with interested parties on this list earlier.

 

The plan is for the workshop to be an outcome or culmination of conversations between the IBR group and other dynamic coalitions between now and December.  If members of other dynamic coalitions are on this list, it would be great to hear your thoughts about our proposals.

 

This workshop would complement the IG Civil Society workshop on a rights approach/agenda to IG.  As I understand it, the 'Rights agenda' workshop plans to map out rights issues as they relate to the internet, taking a fairly broad approach.  The  'Dynamic Coalition' workshop is focused specifically on the work of the coalitions and practical measures that could be taken to help them to protect and advance human rights.

 

I'd also like to express my support for all of the other workshops being proposed by this group.

 

Best wishes,

 

Lisa

 

From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] 
Sent: 30 April 2008 06:36
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Max Senges'
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshops

 

	Max,

	 

	Maybe I'm missing it, but in what you've pointed to I don't see where the issues which we have been discussing here around the rubric "Right to the Internet" are included.

	 

	MG

	 

	 -----Original Message-----
	From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] 
	Sent: April 29, 2008 10:34 AM
	To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann
	Cc: Parminder
	Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
	
	  

	I also support all 4 proposals.
	
	Regarding the Rights Agenda workshop, I'd like to share that the IBR DC is preparing an additional workshop proposal which deals with the practicalities of including Rights in Internet Governance. (http://www.socialtext.net/internet-bill-of-rights/index.cgi?mainstreaming_human_rights_in_the_work_of_the_dynamic_coalitions)
	
	IMHO the proposed workshop on the Agenda is meant to bring all the folks interested in Rights together, map the field (synergies and hot topics)  and start working on a shared agenda.
	
	Max

	On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

	A yes to all 4 workshop proposals from me as well.
	I hope though that the one on rights will be revised after the submission.
	jeanette
	
	shaila mistry wrote:

	"Yes" to all four workshops
	Shaila Rao Mistry
	
	*/Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>/* wrote:
	
	
	   Hi all
	
	   Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
	   proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
	
	   1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
	
	   2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
	
	   3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
	
	   4. The role and mandate of the IGF
	
	
	   These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
	   rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to
	   the IGF
	   secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
	
	   Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
	   they stand...
	
	   While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
	   should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
	
	   In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a
	   'no'
	   vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
	   consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
	
	   Thanks
	
	   Parminder
	   ____________________________________________________________
	   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	   governance at lists.cpsr.org
	   To be removed from the list, send any message to:
	   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
	
	   For all list information and functions, see:
	   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	   From: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett at internet.law.pro>
	   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
	   Subject: [governance] Workshop Proposal: Transboundary Internet
	   Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:57:53 +0530
	
	   All, below is a draft workshop proposal that Meryem Marzouki, William    Drake, Ian Peter, Parminder Singh and I have been working on. We plan    to submit it by the deadline, but would like your input and    suggestions, on all aspects.
	         -- Bret
	   - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
	   1.      Name of proposed workshop
	   The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
	   2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme    including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
	   The Internet crosses the boundaries of all nations and raises some    unique transboundary jurisdictional problems. The recent case of a    British citizen living in Spain, with Internet servers in the Bahamas,    selling holidays to Cuba, and having his domain name impounded by a    registrar located in the USA because it appeared to break the US    embargo against Cuba is one recent case in point. Another landmark    case was the French-US Yahoo! case in 1999 dealing with sale of nazi    memorabilia, but but apart from these high profile content cases there    are many examples in other areas such as privacy, consumer issues,    cybercrime, and intellectual property.
	   This workshop will discuss the many implications of competing national    jurisdictions being projected into a globalized space where multiple    normative sources apply, such as political, legal, technical,    contractual, and behavioral regulations. Through practical case    studies, this workshop will look at the implications of various    approaches to resolving these issues and the implications for Internet    governance, international law, national sovereignty, democracy, and    human rights and fundamental freedoms.
	   The workshop also explores the implications for Internet governance    where no structures are in place to deal with emerging issues, and how    default unilateral action in the absence of structural alternatives    can lead to de facto Internet governance.
	   3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are    planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether    you have approached them about their willingness to participate in    proposed workshop.
	   NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means that we should have no more    than 6-7 panelists plus chair. This is a tentative list of speakers.
	   *       Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General, The
	   Council of    Europe
	   *       Manon Ress /James Love, Knowledge Ecology
	   International/CPTech, USA
	   *       Meryem Marzouki, President, European Digital Rights, Europe
	   *       Bret A. Fausett, Internet law Attorney, Cathcart, Collins &    Kneafsey, LLP USA
	   *       Ian Peter, Internet Analyst, Ian Peter and Associates,
	   Australia
	   *       William Drake, Graduate Institute of International and
	   Development    Studies, Switzerland
	   Yet to be approached: other identified experts with various    perspectives on specific case studies.
	   Themes to be discussed by speakers:
	   *       Liability and the principle of the country of origin
	   (off-line and    on-line content): Convention on Transfrontier television, Rome II,    Convention on TV without Frontiers,
	   *       Consumer protection, contracts, etc.: Hague Convention,
	   E-commerce    directive
	   *       Cybercrime: The CoE Convention, its protocols and
	   implementation    activities
	   *       Technical and contractual means: ISP charters and hotlines,
	   blocking    (cf. Pakistan case)
	   *       Harmonization of national laws through intergovernmental
	   agreements
	   4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their    affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take    steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical    diversity and gender balance.
	   -       The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (Civil society)
	   -       The Council of Europe - TBC (Intergovernmental organization)
	   -       European Digital Rights (Civil society)
	   -       Knowledge Ecology International (KEI/CPTech) - TBC (Civil
	   society)
	   -       Ian Peter and Associates - TBC (Private sector)
	   Yet to be approached: Some governments (e.g. France, USA,    Netherlands, ...); other intergovernmental organizations (e.g. OSCE,    OCDE,...), other private sector constituencies (e.g. ISP associations,    newspaper associations, registrars, search engine/social networking    companies, ...); other civil society constituencies.
	   5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on
	   the    issues under discussion?
	   Yes. Expertise is being sought from various areas to provide a    comprehensive coverage of issues and perspectives involved (to be    updated later).
	   6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating
	   to    Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the    Tunis Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
	   The first and foremost need for global Internet governance    arrangements comes from the global, cross-boundaries nature of the    Internet. Issues with global Internet governance are not only related    to critical Internet resources management, but also to the circulation    of content and data and to the protection of the general    communications infrastructure. Jurisdictions, control and sovereignty    issues are thus at the heart of global Internet governance    discussions. Given the difficulty to harmonize national legislations,    and given the issue of the competence of jurisdictions, alternative    methods to State regulations are more and more considered, promoted    and implemented. It is the very aim of this workshop to explore and    discuss these alternatives.
	   TA: Para 72(b)(c)(g)(i)(k)
	   7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you
	   have    organized in the past.
	   The Civil,Society Internet Governance Caucus and other sponsors have    organized workshops at previous IGF meetings (to be updated later)
	   8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one?
	   Did    you submit a workshop report?
	   Yes (to be updated with list of previous workshops)
	   9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall
	   under ?
	   *       Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
	   *       Arrangements for Internet governance
	   - - - - - D R A F T - - - - -
	   ____________________________________________________________
	   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	        governance at lists.cpsr.org
	   To be removed from the list, send any message to:
	        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
	   For all list information and functions, see:
	        http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
	   From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
	   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
	   Subject: [governance] Internationalization Workshop
	   Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:42:02 +0530
	
	
	   Here is the proposal as it now stands. Note that after two requests we
	   are still waiting for volunteers/interested parties from this list.
	   1. Name of proposed workshop    The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
	       2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
	   including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
	   ICANN, which coordinates and sets policy for the global domain name
	   system (DNS) and IP addressing, is linked to the US Government
	   through a
	   Joint Project Agreement (JPA) that expires in September 2009. The JPA
	   and its renewal process provides what, during WSIS, became known as
	   "political oversight" over ICANN. The US government says that it is
	   committed to "completing the transition" to private sector coordination
	   of the Domain Name System, which implies an expiration of the JPA.
	   During the recent mid-term review, ICANN made it clear that it also
	   strongly supports an end to the JPA. ICANN's call was supported by some
	   stakeholders, but others expressed concerns about ensuring its
	   accountability without some kind of governmental oversight.
	   This panel is designed to provide a careful and balanced exploration of
	   whether ICANN is ready to be free of US government oversight, and if so
	   what kind of external oversight - if any - should replace it. Panelists
	   will be encouraged to provide specific models for ICANN's status and
	   various oversight models and offer practical suggestions on how to make
	   changes in the current situation. Advocates of retaining the status quo
	   will also be represented.        3. Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
	   planning
	   to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you have
	   you approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
	   workshop.        ICANN: Peter Dengate Thrush
	   IGP: Milton Mueller
	   Dr. Vladimir V. Sokolov, Moscow State University, Deputy Director,
	   International Institute for
	   Government of Canada
	   Michael Palage, Attorney and former ICANN Board member
	   Nashwa Abdel Baki, Egyptian Universities Network (EUN)
	   <civil society representative selected by IGC>
	   Internet Society - either Stefano Trumpy or Lynn St. Amour
	   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: "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org>
	   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
	   Subject: [governance] IGC workshop: A rights agenda for Internet
	   Governance
	   Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:41:15 +0530
	
	   Dear all
	
	   A working group comprised of the following folk have worked hard to
	   draft a proposal on:
	
	   A rights agenda for internet goernance
	
	   The working group included : Michael Gurstein,  Parminder Jeet
	   Singh,  Lisa Horner, Konstantinos Komaitis, Vittorio Bertola, Robin
	   Gross, Robert Guerra, rafik dammak, linda misek-falkoff and myself.
	   I believe posts were also shared from time to time with the bill or
	   rights coalition. (colleagues - please clarify any omissions i may
	   have made in that list..)
	
	   It was a very interesting drafting process, and we fully realise
	   that this is a complex and challenging topic to bring to the IGF
	   Table - but we are convinced that it is not only relevant to the IGF
	   Mandate, but central to the mandate and the long term impact of the
	   IGF process.
	
	   Please review the attached draft - we look forward to your comments
	   in relation to
	
	   - the substantive sections (q2 and q6)
	   - ideas for panellists and main actors in the field (q3)
	   - ideas for 2 or 3 additional co-sponsors (q4)
	   - your thoughts on which theme(s) the proposal best fits with - i
	   would say it's an 'missing' crosscut ;)
	
	   we'll take a round of comments til end monday (april 28th) and take
	   it from there..
	
	   thanks everyone
	
	   karen (for michael, parminder and the working group)
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	   ____________________________________________________________
	   You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
	   governance at lists.cpsr.org
	   To be removed from the list, send 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 Malcolm" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
	   To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
	   Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal: The Role and Mandate of the IGF
	   Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:48:37 +0530
	
	   A small working group comprising Lee McKnight, Karen Banks, Baudouin    Schombe and myself was recently convened by Parminder to work on a    proposal for a workshop for Hyderabad on "The Role and Mandate of the    IGF".
	   Whilst not everyone in the working group has had the time to consider    this text (which myself, Baudouin and Parminder contributed to), it is    presented now due to pressure of time, since the approval of the    caucus is required before 30 April.
	   Please send comments on the draft proposal to the list as soon as    possible.  Thank you!
	   --- begins ---
	   Title of the Workshop: 'The role and mandate of the IGF'
	   Civil Society Internet Caucus held a workshop on the same theme, 'The    role and mandate of the IGF', at IGF, Rio. A report of this first    workshop is found athttp://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?
	   mem=30. It was driven by an identification of a need for regular self-
	   appraisal of the IGF vis-à-vis its mandated role. Such a 'periodic    review' is also required by the Tunis Agenda (paragraph 73 b).    Consequently, the caucus proposes to hold a workshop with the same    title during IGF, Hyderabad.
	   The role and mandate of the Internet Governance Forum were set out in    general terms at the World Summit on the Information Society,    particularly in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda.  However since the    conclusion of the World Summit, various interpretations of this    general statement of the IGF's role and mandate have been put forward    and continue to be debated amongst its stakeholders.  Some believe    that there are elements of the IGF's mandate that have been overlooked    or minimised in its operation to date.  Others maintain, to the    contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching ambitions of    those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for discussion    into something more.
	   Since IGF, Hyderabad, represents the midpoint in the initial 5 year    term of the IGF after which the whole IGF process is sought to be    reviewed. It will be pertinent at this midpoint to
	   (1)        review how the IGF has fared till now vis-à-vis its TA    mandate, and whether any structure and/or substance corrections are    needed for the remaining part of its initial 5 year mandate
	   (2)        what are the emerging views on post-2010 arrangements for    the IGF, if one is at all needed.
	   There has been unmistakable improvements in the IGF format and    substance since its first meeting whether it has been to include    topics earlier considered too controversial (CIRs for Rio) or more    focused discussions on specific issues (as per tentative program for    Hyderabad). The directions of these changes vis-à-vis fulfillment of    the mandate of the IGF may also be an important issue of discussion.    Since paragraph 73 also speaks about a 'decentralized structure' it    will also be worth exploring how can the IGF be decentralized beyond    the present structure of a single annual event, perhaps by exploring    IGF like structures at the regional and national levels (which will    inter aliafulfill part of the requirements of paragraph 80) and    working group working on important issues contributing to the    proceedings of the annual event.
	   --    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
	
	
	
	
	**be as a well......sure and limitless....

	but as time befits.....assume other forms .... ***
	** ** *
	
	

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

	
	
	
	-- 
	-------------------------------------------------
	"I meant to tell mankind . . . to attempt a quixotic adventure with no resources
	beyond their native strength and sagacity. I had done it myself and found not
	only that the pearl of great price was worth far more than I possessed, but that
	the very perils and privations of the Quest were themselves my dearest memories.
	I was certain of this at least: that nothing in the world except this was worth
	doing."
	- Aleister Crowley, The Confessions 
	
	-------------------------------------------------
	Dr. Max Senges
	Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar
	UOC Research Associate 
	Freelance Consultant
	
	98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025
	
	US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826
	
	www.maxsenges.com
	www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
	------------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/4f5b9b1a/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 muguet at mdpi.net  Wed Apr 30 09:20:02 2008
From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:20:02 +0200
Subject: Deadline for MAG candidates ? Re: [governance] Stepping down
In-Reply-To: <2B3FA1B4-4597-4B23-ADD2-8C760D61CEAB@ras.eu.org>
References: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info> <2B3FA1B4-4597-4B23-ADD2-8C760D61CEAB@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <48187202.8060504@mdpi.net>

Dear Meryem
Dear friends
Dear Markus

c/c Markus Kummer
c/c IGC  list
c/c WSIS-Gov list

Yes indeed, seeing the diligence of the IGC to nominate candidates to 
the MAG, I thought I have been missing
something ( I have been overworked lately and did not have time to read 
all the mails on the IGC list. )

Following informal discussions we had, Louis, Michel, Chantal, me and 
others, with Markus last Monday morning,
it appears that the secretariat is going to announce shortly a call for 
candidates for the MAG in conditions
that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month should be given 
between the official call and
the response to call, leaving a decent time for various constituencies 
to propose  their slate of candidates.
I have put Markus in c/c so that he could clarify issues for both the 
IGC and WSIS-Gov groups,
and correct my understanding if needed.

My guess, to be confirmed by Louis,  is that the WSIS-Gov group is going 
to wait for  the official announcement,
before starting a process for proposing candidates, because otherwise, 
it is like shooting in the dark.
It is necessary to know who are going to leave the MAG in the first place.

It seems to a few of us,  that the deadline for application for 
workshops was really too early, 
making difficult for  many people to present a rather delineated 
proposal as requested,
resulting into a rather selective, non-inclusive process.
It is my understanding that the secretariat will be flexible for the 
deadlines, and would be satisfied with
declaration of intent to be completed at a later stage.  It is my 
understanding the intent of such an early
call is to have a first rough assessment of the number and nature of 
workshops.

There are some points where we are expecting some more information from 
the organizers, especially the
ICT village with booths.
This would be particularly relevant to main workshops related to the 
theme*  */low cost sustainable access/
where low cost devices could be displayed in booths and demonstrated to 
stakeholders, as for example,
it is under consideration to do within a contribution from the
Digital World Forum on Accessible and Inclusive ICT 
<http://www.digitalworldforum.eu/>
What is the size of the place ? size of the booths ?
The question is whether the ICT Village would be entirely into the UN 
zone, or we could have a separate
exhibition place outside the UN zone where it would be easier place for 
an exhibition.

As many people are focusing their attention to the 12-23 May 2008 
Cluster of WSIS-related events <http://wsis-si.org/cluster-may08.html>
my own suggestion is that more precise information about workshops 
proposals; ( and
new proposals )  should be allowed to be given in  the end of June, 
beginning of July,
to take full advantage of the Cluster of WSIS-related events 
<http://wsis-si.org/cluster-may08.html> so that people have more time
and opportunity to network and bring synergies,
for example concerning the themes :
/Arrangements for Internet governance /
with the Stakeholder Consultation on Public Participation in Internet 
Governance <http://www.unece.org/env/pp/related.htm> ( UNECE / APC )

/Multilingualization /with the
  <http://wsis-si.org/diversity.html>C8. Cultural diversity and 
identity, linguistic diversity and local content 
<http://wsis-si.org/diversity.html> action
line meeting, or concerning

/low cost sustainable access /with initiatives
that could emerge from the WSIS  C7 e-learning 
<http://wsis-si.org/e-learning.html> action line meeting
( Open Consultative meeting on low-cost devices for education: ICT 
Applications:)
and the  C2.Information and communication infrastructure 
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/c2/index.html> meeting.

All the best

Francis

> Hi all,
>
> I'm unable to find a deadline for MAG candidates nominations. Does 
> anyone know when it is? We need to know if we have time to do anything 
> with the rather confused current situation.
>
> Thanks,
> Meryem
>
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 05:06, Robert Guerra a écrit :
>
>>
>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom 
>> to some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is 
>> far too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>
>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls 
>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and 
>> mailing list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately 
>> as IGC nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy 
>> and effort needed.
>>
>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to 
>> complete remaining tasks.
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert Guerra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>


-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA/KNIS  http://knis.org
32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE 
Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82 
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet 

FP7  Digital World Forum on Accessible and Inclusive ICT 
PC4D : http://www.pc4d.org

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair 
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
Info. Net. Govermance  :  http://www.wsis-gov.org  web

NET4D : http://www.net4D.org 
UNMSP : http://www.unmsp.org 
WTIS : http://www.wtis.org   REUSSI : http://www.reussi.org
------------------------------------------------------ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/31415f83/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  Wed Apr 30 09:44:23 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:14:23 +0530
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <ED1A2B00-A91F-4E98-A958-95A1B752A4FD@privaterra.info>
Message-ID: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net>



It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at this
point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom. 

Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom process to a
closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of tomorrow, the
1st. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> 
> 
> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom to
> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is far
> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
> 
> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and mailing
> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
> effort needed.
> 
> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
> complete remaining tasks.
> 
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert Guerra
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


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

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


From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Apr 30 10:26:03 2008
From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:56:03 +0530
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080430084618.7E48542928B@mail.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20080430142625.5E65167981@smtp1.electricembers.net>

 

>if you're going to be late, i'd suggest you send the secretariat a note to
that effect.. i'm sure they'll understand

>karen.

 

Thanks, Karen, I will be able to send three of them, and Milton will be
sending the post-JPA one. Parminder 

 

 

  _____  

From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 2:16 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshops

 

hi parminder

I think you should submit the prposals (as summarised below, with the noted
exception re the IGP led proposal)

if you're going to be late, i'd suggest you send the secretariat a note to
that effect.. i'm sure they'll understand

karen


At 03:27 30/04/2008, you wrote:



Sorry, Bill and others who may have raised points that I may have not been
able to address. I am very busy in an ITfC organized workshop on ICTs in
Indian education policy in New delhi, though I have dutifully kept an eye
on all emails to the list. 
 
Aslo, as you will all understand, at this point of the consensus process, I
would not like to get into too many discussions :-)
 
 
However since Bill asks for some clarification before he could say yes or no
(though I note he has said yes to all in a later email) I thought I should
clarify.
 
> ---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just access?),
its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new rights, etc.  
 
Yes, that how it is. 
 
 
Also I will clean up the proposals to my best ability, if the consensus is
reached, in the little time I will have today before submitting, but if I
cant, I think they will let us do it in the next 2-3 days, and that MAG
wouldnt start to see the proposals immediately. I will submit three
proposals ands will ask Milton to submit the post-JPA one, that is, to
repeat, if the consensus carries. 
 
Best Parminder 
 

  _____  

From: William Drake [ <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:56 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshops
 
Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this.  If we could clarify something before having to say yes or
no, Id appreciate it.

Is the idea that the IGC would be submitting only responses to the questions
that are supposed to be answered by 30 April, # 1, 2, 4 and 9?  Of are you
thinking of plugging in all the material now at hand for all nine,
irrespective of what state its in and whether its ready for prime time?
If it is the latter, maybe others have a different view, but I wouldnt
think it would be a procedural violation of the consensus call to simply
edit out some of the various process comments being exchanged among WG
members within these docs, like NB. Workshop duration is 90mn, which means
that we should have no more than 6-7 panelists plus chair and it would be
good to have a government (or two) and an intergovermmental as co-sponsors -
i would propose the COE/UNESCO as possibilities - brazil, uk, australia,
others? and we need to work on thisk, but for sure it will if we get the
right people as speakers and lists of people/orgs that might (or might not)
be contacted about cosponsoring/speaking...etc.  It would be odd to me
anyway to include such material in something that will be reviewed by the
MAG.   


A couple of substantive comments FWIW, which is not much I guess, given that
Ive missed the deadline.

Im still having a hard time getting my head around the precise focus of the
rights proposal (What is lacking is a rights framework for Internet
governance that can address these issues and conflicts at each layer of
the Internet environment, from the critical Internet resources of
infrastructure and code through to the content and applications that they
support---so all aspects of IG to be viewed as rights issues, not just
access?), its connection to internationally agreed HR vs creating new
rights, etc.  

On the Fulfilling WS, I wonder how helpful it is to frame it in terms of
this binary: Some believe  that there are elements of the IGF's mandate
that have been overlooked  or minimised in its operation to date.  Others
maintain, to the  contrary, that the IGF must contain the overreaching
ambitions of  those who would transform it from a non-binding forum for
discussion  into something more.?  Some MAGites et al might read this as
suggesting that those who think elements of the mandate have been overlooked
by definition want to transform it from a non-binding forum, which is not
representative of the range of views/options and could set off alarm bells
and bring us back to the pre-Rio worrying about this being controversial
etc.  BTW, this needs to list at least one or two cosponsors, no?  Has the
WG reached out to anyone?

Best,

Bill

On 4/28/08 6:21 PM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

Hi all

Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.  

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

4. The role and mandate of the IGF


These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT. 

Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
they stand...

While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.

In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.  

Thanks

Parminder 
 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/27ef5b41/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  Wed Apr 30 10:49:01 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:49:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>

Parminder, all,

Why hurry?
Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the secretariat  
is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in  
conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month  
should be given between the official call and the response to call,  
leaving a decent time for various constituencies to propose  their  
slate of candidates."
Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,  
including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the  
opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand why  
we shouldn't use this opportunity.
Best,
Meryem

Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :

>
>
> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at this
> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>
> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom  
> process to a
> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of  
> tomorrow, the
> 1st.
>
> Parminder
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>
>>
>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the  
>> nomcom to
>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is  
>> far
>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>
>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
>> mailing
>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>> effort needed.
>>
>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>> complete remaining tasks.
>>
>>
>> regards
>>
>> Robert Guerra
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 11:07:25 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:07:25 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>

Hi,

I do not suggest waiting another month.  The secretariat did let  
people know in February that towards the end of April would be a good  
target date.  I don't know when the official announcement will come  
out, and I do not yet know how long an interval the secretariat will  
allow for nominations, but I do know that if there is a hope of having  
a new MAG in plenty of time for the September meeting which means  
having answers by the end of July if possible for travel arrangements  
and the like, the names will have to be in relatively soon.

That is the reason the advance warning was given in February.  Ie. so  
that everyone would have time for their procedures.

a.


On 30 Apr 2008, at 10:49, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Parminder, all,
>
> Why hurry?
> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the secretariat  
> is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in  
> conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month  
> should be given between the official call and the response to call,  
> leaving a decent time for various constituencies to propose  their  
> slate of candidates."
> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,  
> including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the  
> opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand  
> why we shouldn't use this opportunity.
> Best,
> Meryem
>
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at  
>> this
>> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>>
>> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom  
>> process to a
>> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of  
>> tomorrow, the
>> 1st.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the  
>>> nomcom to
>>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is  
>>> far
>>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>>
>>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
>>> mailing
>>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>>> effort needed.
>>>
>>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>>> complete remaining tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 11:30:58 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:00:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <051201c8aad7$31f15810$95d40830$@net>

.. and if the nomcom was a day or less away from closure, why did Robert
abruptly resign citing lack of time, with immediate effect?

There just might be a bit more of a back story here.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> 
> Parminder, all,
> 
> Why hurry?
> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the secretariat
> is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in
> conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month
> should be given between the official call and the response to call,
> leaving a decent time for various constituencies to propose  their
> slate of candidates."
> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,
> including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the
> opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand why
> we shouldn't use this opportunity.
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
> 
> >
> >
> > It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at
> this
> > point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
> >
> > Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom
> > process to a
> > closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of
> > tomorrow, the
> > 1st.
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
> >> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> >> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> >>
> >>
> >> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the
> >> nomcom to
> >> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is
> >> far
> >> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
> >>
> >> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
> >> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and
> >> mailing
> >> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
> >> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
> >> effort needed.
> >>
> >> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
> >> complete remaining tasks.
> >>
> >>
> >> regards
> >>
> >> Robert Guerra
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

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

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 30 11:35:04 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:35:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
Message-ID: <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>

I must disagree here. We have an unexpected opportunity to make our  
process more transparent and compliant with out own charter. We can't  
afford leaving room to disputes if this is avoidable.
What I propose is the following:

- We keep the same nomcom (it has been constituted in an appropriate  
manner)
- The nomcom will publish all the nominees application, according to  
IGC charter (if needed, the comcom could take some days to inform all  
candidates that they have a 2-3 days deadline to change anything in  
their details, since they would be made public. Obviously, the nomcom  
should make its selection on the basis of the public information only)
- We should have a quick discussion on the number of selected  
candidates (is 15 fine?)
- The nomcom internally discuss its previous choice: confirmed,  
adjusted, etc.
- The selection is published
- The selection is sent to the secretariat

Best,
Meryem

Le 30 avr. 08 à 17:07, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I do not suggest waiting another month.  The secretariat did let  
> people know in February that towards the end of April would be a  
> good target date.  I don't know when the official announcement will  
> come out, and I do not yet know how long an interval the  
> secretariat will allow for nominations, but I do know that if there  
> is a hope of having a new MAG in plenty of time for the September  
> meeting which means having answers by the end of July if possible  
> for travel arrangements and the like, the names will have to be in  
> relatively soon.
>
> That is the reason the advance warning was given in February.  Ie.  
> so that everyone would have time for their procedures.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2008, at 10:49, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Parminder, all,
>>
>> Why hurry?
>> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the  
>> secretariat is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for  
>> the MAG in conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of  
>> one month should be given between the official call and the  
>> response to call, leaving a decent time for various constituencies  
>> to propose  their slate of candidates."
>> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,  
>> including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the  
>> opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand  
>> why we shouldn't use this opportunity.
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at  
>>> this
>>> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>>>
>>> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom  
>>> process to a
>>> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of  
>>> tomorrow, the
>>> 1st.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the  
>>>> nomcom to
>>>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well,  
>>>> is far
>>>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>>>
>>>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>>>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
>>>> mailing
>>>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>>>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>>>> effort needed.
>>>>
>>>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>>>> complete remaining tasks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Robert Guerra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 11:40:22 2008
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:10:22 +0530
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <054001c8aad8$81e3b1a0$85ab14e0$@net>

I fully agree. We have time to do this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:05 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> 
> I must disagree here. We have an unexpected opportunity to make our
> process more transparent and compliant with out own charter. We can't
> afford leaving room to disputes if this is avoidable.
> What I propose is the following:
> 


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 11:45:15 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:45:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com>


On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:35, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> compliant with out own charter.


i do not see any way in which the nomcom was non-compliant except  
perhaps that it did not have a non voting chair who was separate from  
the nomcom itself.  but since no one was wiling to volunteer for this  
task (myself included) I am not sure what else can be done.

The rule about publishing the names and info of candidates does not  
specify when it is done, so as long as it is done before the names are  
sent on and the nomcom blinks out of existence, i do not understand  
what is missing.

It is all well and good if another  group wishes to delay, I still  
recommend against it for this caucus.  In fact I would recommend  
against waiting for the announcement for that group as well.

a.

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

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


From avri at psg.com  Wed Apr 30 12:03:03 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:03:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
Message-ID: <64B4A043-576C-416B-9C36-628535B6396C@psg.com>


On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:07, Avri Doria wrote:
> I do not yet know how long an interval the secretariat will allow  
> for nominations,


Corection, I now have a better idea, you would have until May 21.

While still waiting for the formal announcement, the Secretariat is  
now planing to put the deadline after the May consultation and 21 May  
is the deadline.

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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 30 12:14:23 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:14:23 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org> <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com>
Message-ID: <2123C6AE-EF70-41F4-BD2B-B61772F300DA@ras.eu.org>


Le 30 avr. 08 à 17:45, Avri Doria a écrit :

>
> On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:35, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> compliant with out own charter.
>
>
> i do not see any way in which the nomcom was non-compliant except  
> perhaps that it did not have a non voting chair who was separate  
> from the nomcom itself.  but since no one was wiling to volunteer  
> for this task (myself included) I am not sure what else can be done.

I don't see the absence of a non voting chair as an issue. We do what  
we can with our limited resources.

> The rule about publishing the names and info of candidates does not  
> specify when it is done, so as long as it is done before the names  
> are sent on and the nomcom blinks out of existence, i do not  
> understand what is missing.

I don't see your point here. Whatever way one might understand when  
it is done (and note that the nomcom already published its results on  
this list), we have the precedent of the previous candidates selection.

> It is all well and good if another  group wishes to delay, I still  
> recommend against it for this caucus.  In fact I would recommend  
> against waiting for the announcement for that group as well.

Why?

In any case, you just informed thus in the mean time that the  
deadline would be 21 May. This leaves us plenty of time to do what  
I've proposed. Let's see if there are other people against it, and  
what are their reasons - if we have some explanations, then we might  
at least understand why we shouldn't use this opportunity).

Best,
Meryem

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

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


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Apr 30 12:21:19 2008
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:21:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>

The secretariat's announcement seems to be an indication of the bloody 
(internecine and otherwise) struggles going on behind curtains to 
dispute the very few places in the MAG. As a person who has participated 
in this process formally or informally since the beginning of the WSIS 
process in general and the WGIG in particular, I think aloud: is it 
really worth it beyond the personal imagery and added CV lines?

In any case, our region has done its job as much as it could, indicating 
five names. Let us see what the outcome of this imbroglio will be...

--c.a.

Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Parminder, all,
> 
> Why hurry?
> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the secretariat is 
> going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in 
> conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month should 
> be given between the official call and the response to call, leaving a 
> decent time for various constituencies to propose  their slate of 
> candidates."
> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process, including 
> with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the opportunity to allow 
> ourselves some more time. I don't understand why we shouldn't use this 
> opportunity.
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
> 
>>
>>
>> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at this
>> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>>
>> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom process 
>> to a
>> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of tomorrow, 
>> the
>> 1st.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>>
>>>
>>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom to
>>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is far
>>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>>
>>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and mailing
>>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>>> effort needed.
>>>
>>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>>> complete remaining tasks.
>>>
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> Robert Guerra
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 

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

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


From jeanette at wzb.eu  Wed Apr 30 12:23:43 2008
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:23:43 +0100
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <2123C6AE-EF70-41F4-BD2B-B61772F300DA@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org> <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com> <2123C6AE-EF70-41F4-BD2B-B61772F300DA@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <48189D0F.6020702@wzb.eu>

Hi,
I probably shouldn't speak up on this issue since I am one of the 
candidates but what the heck...

I still try to figure out what I find more messy, recalling a nomcom 
decision or sticking to a nomcom decision that may have been affected by 
unclear rules.
It is obvious that a discussion of the desirable number of nominees 
would have a direct influence on the nomcom's decision making.
What I don't understand is in what way an earlier publication of the 
candidate's statements would have affected the nomcom's outcome. Or is 
the issue yet another one?

jeanette
Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> 
> Le 30 avr. 08 à 17:45, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
>>
>> On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:35, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>> compliant with out own charter.
>>
>>
>> i do not see any way in which the nomcom was non-compliant except 
>> perhaps that it did not have a non voting chair who was separate from 
>> the nomcom itself.  but since no one was wiling to volunteer for this 
>> task (myself included) I am not sure what else can be done.
> 
> I don't see the absence of a non voting chair as an issue. We do what we 
> can with our limited resources.
> 
>> The rule about publishing the names and info of candidates does not 
>> specify when it is done, so as long as it is done before the names are 
>> sent on and the nomcom blinks out of existence, i do not understand 
>> what is missing.
> 
> I don't see your point here. Whatever way one might understand when it 
> is done (and note that the nomcom already published its results on this 
> list), we have the precedent of the previous candidates selection.
> 
>> It is all well and good if another  group wishes to delay, I still 
>> recommend against it for this caucus.  In fact I would recommend 
>> against waiting for the announcement for that group as well.
> 
> Why?
> 
> In any case, you just informed thus in the mean time that the deadline 
> would be 21 May. This leaves us plenty of time to do what I've proposed. 
> Let's see if there are other people against it, and what are their 
> reasons - if we have some explanations, then we might at least 
> understand why we shouldn't use this opportunity).
> 
> Best,
> Meryem
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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


From marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 30 12:32:32 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:32:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <C4E1D245-E004-4083-9D35-27CBB035050A@ras.eu.org>


Le 30 avr. 08 à 18:21, Carlos Afonso a écrit :

> The secretariat's announcement seems to be an indication of the  
> bloody (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on behind  
> curtains to dispute the very few places in the MAG. As a person who  
> has participated in this process formally or informally since the  
> beginning of the WSIS process in general and the WGIG in  
> particular, I think aloud: is it really worth it beyond the  
> personal imagery and added CV lines?

Certainly not. And, as a matter of coherence, I, for one, have  
constantly refused to be involved in this whole process.
But what does matter for me, is the process that we are following.  
What we accept and what we don't.

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 bfausett at internet.law.pro  Wed Apr 30 12:45:04 2008
From: bfausett at internet.law.pro (Bret Fausett)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:45:04 -0700
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
Message-ID: <47771D38-C19C-4EB0-AFF8-E86976D17BA9@internet.law.pro>

I served on the last NomComm. Happy to help out again, as non-voting,  
if needed in Robert's absence.

     -- 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 marzouki at ras.eu.org  Wed Apr 30 12:48:54 2008
From: marzouki at ras.eu.org (Meryem Marzouki)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:48:54 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <48189D0F.6020702@wzb.eu>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org> <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com> <2123C6AE-EF70-41F4-BD2B-B61772F300DA@ras.eu.org> <48189D0F.6020702@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <05784BC6-FA7D-484F-AA8F-80DC6C97AA6F@ras.eu.org>


Le 30 avr. 08 à 18:23, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Hi,
> I probably shouldn't speak up on this issue since I am one of the  
> candidates but what the heck...

..

> I still try to figure out what I find more messy, recalling a  
> nomcom decision or sticking to a nomcom decision that may have been  
> affected by unclear rules.

It's not about mess (we're used with that). It's about healthiness  
(very important in bloody contexts, isn't it?). So, I prefer a  
healthy, sound, salubrious mess rather than an infected mess, in such  
circonstances (it may turn out into an endemic state, and I prefer to  
avoid this).

> What I don't understand is in what way an earlier publication of  
> the candidate's statements would have affected the nomcom's  
> outcome. Or is the issue yet another one?

Jeanette, may I remind you that we haven't even enjoyed a later  
publication of these statements, till now?
To start with, I, for one, want to see the report that should have  
been submitted to the nomcom from the incumbents on their activity in  
the MAG as CS members.

Moreover, a nomcom, by definition, is constrained by the fact that  
people see on which bases it makes it decision. If we don't know who  
are the candidates, how the hell would we make any appreciation on  
the resulting selection? I don't even understand why the LAC people  
are unhappy with the selection, if I don't know whether there are  
only two LAC candidates or more than two..

These are really basic arguments. There is the most important one:  
the principle. How could we have any respect for ourselves if we  
accept such processes? The more some people seem reluctant to  
transparency and daylight, the more the process they support looks  
like a vampire (yes, a bloody situation, definitely). You don't want  
a MAG-Dracula, on top of all its failures, do you?

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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Apr 30 12:51:13 2008
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 01:51:13 +0900
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <48189D0F.6020702@wzb.eu>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net>
 <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
 <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
 <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
 <CEAB7DD3-D7F4-4B43-8A81-5FF660505147@psg.com>
 <2123C6AE-EF70-41F4-BD2B-B61772F300DA@ras.eu.org>
 <48189D0F.6020702@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <p0624082fc43e50bea0f9@[192.168.1.3]>

Suggest we wait until we have heard from Ian as 
the new nomcom chair.  After that, if the caucus 
wishes to redo the process then it might be a 
good idea to ask the whole nomcom if they would 
continue. Robert seems unavailable for a while 
(perhaps not?)  Would we want to continue if some 
members of the nomcom we not able to continue?

It's not completely clear to me what re-doing the 
process would achieve.  Is it process for the 
sake of process, or do we expect a more valid 
outcome?

There's a consultation coming up.  It would be 
really helpful if the caucus focused on that as 
well.  It really does help MAG members to know 
what the caucus is thinking, what issues should 
be on the agenda, what format is preferred, 
comments about experiences in Rio. Much of this 
would repeat or add to comments from the February 
consultation, but responses to the MAG's papers:

Draft programme outline 
<http://intgovforum.org/hydera/DraftProgramme.Hyderabad-draft.26.03.2008.pdf>
Summary of the MAG meeting 
<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf>

would be helpful.

The consultation process gives us the opportunity 
for comment, MAG response/interpretation, 
comment, etc.  Let's not miss that.

Thanks,

Adam




At 5:23 PM +0100 4/30/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Hi,
>I probably shouldn't speak up on this issue 
>since I am one of the candidates but what the 
>heck...
>
>I still try to figure out what I find more 
>messy, recalling a nomcom decision or sticking 
>to a nomcom decision that may have been affected 
>by unclear rules.
>It is obvious that a discussion of the desirable 
>number of nominees would have a direct influence 
>on the nomcom's decision making.
>What I don't understand is in what way an 
>earlier publication of the candidate's 
>statements would have affected the nomcom's 
>outcome. Or is the issue yet another one?
>
>jeanette
>Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>
>>Le 30 avr. 08 à 17:45, Avri Doria a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>On 30 Apr 2008, at 11:35, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>>>>compliant with out own charter.
>>>
>>>
>>>i do not see any way in which the nomcom was 
>>>non-compliant except perhaps that it did not 
>>>have a non voting chair who was separate from 
>>>the nomcom itself.  but since no one was 
>>>wiling to volunteer for this task (myself 
>>>included) I am not sure what else can be done.
>>
>>I don't see the absence of a non voting chair 
>>as an issue. We do what we can with our limited 
>>resources.
>>
>>>The rule about publishing the names and info 
>>>of candidates does not specify when it is 
>>>done, so as long as it is done before the 
>>>names are sent on and the nomcom blinks out of 
>>>existence, i do not understand what is missing.
>>
>>I don't see your point here. Whatever way one 
>>might understand when it is done (and note that 
>>the nomcom already published its results on 
>>this list), we have the precedent of the 
>>previous candidates selection.
>>
>>>It is all well and good if another  group 
>>>wishes to delay, I still recommend against it 
>>>for this caucus.  In fact I would recommend 
>>>against waiting for the announcement for that 
>>>group as well.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>In any case, you just informed thus in the mean 
>>time that the deadline would be 21 May. This 
>>leaves us plenty of time to do what I've 
>>proposed. Let's see if there are other people 
>>against it, and what are their reasons - if we 
>>have some explanations, then we might at least 
>>understand why we shouldn't use this 
>>opportunity).
>>
>>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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 12:52:57 2008
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:52:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <80A91B54-E9FB-4F93-B28E-06A0987A89F0@psg.com>

Hi,

I don't think so.

I think it has to do with the time it took to get the response and the  
announcement from UN headquarters and a compromise between giving a  
month a making sure that the list of candidates is obtained in time  
for there to be a new MAG in enough time before the September meeting.

To paraphrase an old expression: I do not think that one should  
attribute to "bloody (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on  
behind curtains" what can better be explained by bureaucracy.

I think it is good that you have your names in early, the earlier the  
better.

a.



On 30 Apr 2008, at 12:21, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> The secretariat's announcement seems to be an indication of the  
> bloody (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on behind  
> curtains to dispute the very few places in the MAG. As a person who  
> has participated in this process formally or informally since the  
> beginning of the WSIS process in general and the WGIG in particular,  
> I think aloud: is it really worth it beyond the personal imagery and  
> added CV lines?
>
> In any case, our region has done its job as much as it could,  
> indicating five names. Let us see what the outcome of this imbroglio  
> will be...
>
> --c.a.
>
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Parminder, all,
>> Why hurry?
>> Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the  
>> secretariat is going to announce shortly a call for candidates for  
>> the MAG in conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of  
>> one month should be given between the official call and the  
>> response to call, leaving a decent time for various constituencies  
>> to propose  their slate of candidates."
>> Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process,  
>> including with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the  
>> opportunity to allow ourselves some more time. I don't understand  
>> why we shouldn't use this opportunity.
>> Best,
>> Meryem
>> Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at  
>>> this
>>> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
>>>
>>> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom  
>>> process to a
>>> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of  
>>> tomorrow, the
>>> 1st.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
>>>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
>>>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the  
>>>> nomcom to
>>>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well,  
>>>> is far
>>>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
>>>>
>>>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
>>>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and  
>>>> mailing
>>>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
>>>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
>>>> effort needed.
>>>>
>>>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
>>>> complete remaining tasks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards
>>>>
>>>> Robert Guerra
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

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

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


From nyangkweagien at gmail.com  Wed Apr 30 12:52:45 2008
From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:52:45 +0200
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net>
	 <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org>
	 <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com>
Message-ID: <a6bc8cb30804300952x35eaa1ffva012e95dbf967420@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robert

Thanks for the wonderful work that you did for the IGC all this while. Many
will miss your leadership.
Have some merited rest but continue to be available as you've promised.

Aaron


On 4/30/08, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I do not suggest waiting another month.  The secretariat did let people
> know in February that towards the end of April would be a good target date.
>  I don't know when the official announcement will come out, and I do not yet
> know how long an interval the secretariat will allow for nominations, but I
> do know that if there is a hope of having a new MAG in plenty of time for
> the September meeting which means having answers by the end of July if
> possible for travel arrangements and the like, the names will have to be in
> relatively soon.
>
> That is the reason the advance warning was given in February.  Ie. so that
> everyone would have time for their procedures.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2008, at 10:49, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>
> > Parminder, all,
> >
> > Why hurry?
> > Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the secretariat is
> > going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in conditions
> > that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one month should be given
> > between the official call and the response to call, leaving a decent time
> > for various constituencies to propose  their slate of candidates."
> > Given all the comments and critics made so far on the process, including
> > with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the opportunity to allow
> > ourselves some more time. I don't understand why we shouldn't use this
> > opportunity.
> > Best,
> > Meryem
> >
> > Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
> >
> >
> > >
> > > It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to this at this
> > > point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
> > >
> > > Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the nomcom process
> > > to a
> > > closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end of tomorrow,
> > > the
> > > 1st.
> > >
> > > Parminder
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
> > > > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> > > > Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing the nomcom
> > > > to
> > > > some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - well, is
> > > > far
> > > > too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
> > > >
> > > > So, having contributed my input, funds to make the conference calls
> > > > possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom wiki and
> > > > mailing
> > > > list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
> > > > nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
> > > > effort needed.
> > > >
> > > > I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
> > > > complete remaining tasks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > regards
> > > >
> > > > Robert Guerra
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > > >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > > >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > > >
> > > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > > >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > >
> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> > >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >   governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, 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/20080430/4db1c617/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 qshatti at gmail.com  Wed Apr 30 13:15:20 2008
From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:15:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net>
Message-ID: <609019df0804301015s272d1d9p9cbfe75b9e345b1e@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All:
First I would like to thank all the Caucus members who worked hard in
putting together the workshop proposals. Find below my Comments on each
proposal:

1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
This is an important issue that needs to be understood by developing
countries. On a global level, we need to have a clear famework on how to
deal with the  transboundary Internet. Issues related to consumer
protection, copyrights, privacy and spam are just part of the issues that
relates to this topic which I hope that workshop will link its discusson to
them. I supoort this workshop. YES.

2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
Indeed another important workshop which is linked to the Internet critical
resources theme. People in the development world need to know about it and
hear equally from all invovlved parties. With regard of Milton comment on
the need of a prespective from the developing countries, I will be more than
happy to provide a prespective on this issue (if needed). I also hope that
the participation of Nashwa Abdul Baki may help too. This is another
important Workshop which I fully support. YES.

3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
Very unfortunate that the file did not open correctly in my browser but from
following some of the discussion on this workshop I do find that the topic
is important for all intennet users. I support this workshop. YES.


4. The role and mandate of the IGF
As Meryem said this is the flagship of the IGC. This is an important
workshop that we need to have in every IGC Meeting. On reason for this is
that it will always provide people who are new to the IG process the
necessary background they need to know. Another reason is that this workshop
is a kind of an assessment to what extent the IGC process was successful in
meeting its mandate according to the Tunis Agenda. What I would like to see
further in this workshop is a discussion on enhanced cooperation. I would
suggest also that a historical backgorund on the IG process would be
presented at the begining of the workshop. I support this Workshop. YES.

All the best,,

Qusai
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
wrote:

>
> Hi all
>
> Please find enclosed the full text of four workshop proposals, that IGC
> proposes to sponsor at the IGF, Hyderabad.
>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty
>
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?
>
> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance
>
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>
>
> These are being put for a 48 hour consensus process. If a consensus or a
> rough consensus is made out, these proposals will be submitted to the IGF
> secretariat on the 30th, around 5 PM GMT.
>
> Please indicate a clear 'yes' or 'no' for forwarding these proposals, as
> they stand...
>
> While additional comments justifying a yes or no vote may be made, they
> should follow a clear unqualified 'yes' or 'no'.
>
> In fact such additional comments are welcome especially in case of a 'no'
> vote, because it helps calling a possible rough consensus, taking into
> consideration the nature and the extent of dissent.
>
> Thanks
>
> Parminder
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/48ae2ed4/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  Wed Apr 30 13:17:26 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:17:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <C981FDCC-C42D-41A8-96E5-36B6766DED81@psg.com> <1FB7B9C0-212E-4424-85F3-ADA7F14EE445@ras.eu.org>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC7B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>


I disagree. The gain is minimal, the opportunities for further trouble
large, and the amount of energy expended could better be spent on other
things. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org] 
> 
> We have an unexpected opportunity to make our  
> process more transparent and compliant with out own charter. 
> We can't afford leaving room to disputes if this is avoidable.

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

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


From yjpark21 at gmail.com  Wed Apr 30 14:13:07 2008
From: yjpark21 at gmail.com (YJ Park)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:13:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Re: Workshop Proposal on Access to Local Culture and
 Language
In-Reply-To: <a74d36b0804291146q6b1b429bu35a5db64fbd0f7ac@mail.gmail.com>
References: <a74d36b0804291146q6b1b429bu35a5db64fbd0f7ac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a74d36b0804301113s1cdc6748jec4302d8138a5dd3@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:46 PM, YJ Park <yjpark21 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is a work-in-progess IGF workshop proposal on Multilingualizing
> Internet Gateways on the Internet for your consideration and feedback.
>
> Thank you,
> YJ
>
> =========================================
> 1.      Name of proposed workshop: Access to Local Culture and Language
> (ALCL)
>
> 2.      Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
> including its importance and relevance to the IGF.
>
> The global Internet as of today recognizes only ASCII addresses as domain
> names. But we are in a transition to Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).
> This transition has evolved into a series of political challenges such as
> creating IDNs associated with Country Code Top Level Domain Names
> ("ccTLDs"), developing policies on IDN dispute resolution, IDN whois
> records, and competition among incumbent registries. Who sets the standards?
> How many IDNs should be allocated for each country? Should incumbent
> registries get the same top level domain ("TLD") in new scripts?
>
> This workshop explores how to resolve such political challenges. The
> concept of multilingual road signs on the global Internet was first proposed
> to ICANN in 2000. ICANN is about to implement the IDNs. Why did it take so
> long to reach a global consensus on multilingual domain names?
>
> Those who believe in the principle of global compatibility of the Internet
> were afraid that the Internet would become a tower of Babel. They resisted
> multilingual gateways to protect global compatibility on the Internet. Those
> who believe in the principle of access to local culture and language on the
> Internet kept fighting to build multilingual gateways. Tensions also arise
> among those who use same language and character sets when it comes to a
> decision-making process for the specific language and character sets. The
> Government of China believes it has a sole authority to decide matters about
> Chinese gateways on the global Internet, whilst stakeholders of Chinese are
> all around the world. India has another challenge. The Government of India
> recognizes 23 official languages including Hindi and English. Everybody
> struggles at this stage how to handle this complicated challenge ahead.
>
> 3.      Provide the names and affiliations of the panellists you are
> planning to invite. Describe the main actors in the field and whether you
> have approached them about their willingness to participate in proposed
> workshop.
>
>    - Tinwee Tan (Civil Society, National University of Singapore, MINC)
>    -- Singapore (Confirmed)
>    - ____________ (Civil Society, WFEO CIC) -- Tunisia (under
>    consultation)
>    - China government (Gov't) -- China (under consultation)
>    - Vasil'ev Vladimir Mikhailovich,Head of Department, Ministry for
>    Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation
>    (Gov't) -- Russia (Confirmed)
>    - Yoav Keren... (Private Sector, GNSO/ICANN) -- Israel  --- Domain
>    the Net, Member of ICANN President's Advisory Commitee on IDN, Member of the
>    ICANN GNSO IDN Policy Working Group, Israel Ministry of Communications
>    Representative on IDN to ICANN (Confirmed)
>    - ____________ (International Organization, ICANN or ISOC) -- USA
>    (under consultation)
>    - Subbiah (Private Sector, i-DNS.net) -- Singapore/USA (Confirmed)
>
> 4.      Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
> affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take steps
> to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical diversity and
> gender balance.
>
>    - Tinwee Tan (National University of Signapore, Multilingual
>    Internet Names Consortium)  Civil Society, Singapore, Asia
>
>
>    - YJ
>    - Tijani Ben Jamma (WFEO Committee on Information Communication,
>    Vice-Chair) Civil Society, Tunisia, Africa
>    - Subbiah (i-DNS.net) Private Sector, Singapore/USA, Asia/North
>    Americ
>
>

> 5.      Does the proposed workshop provide different perspectives on the
> issues under discussion?
>
> Yes. Visions on multilingualization on the Internet will be explored to
> provide a comprehensive coverage of the challenges in materializing "Access
> to Local Culture and Language" on the Global Internet.
>
> 6.      Please explain how the workshop will address issues relating to
> Internet governance and describe how the workshop conforms with the Tunis
> Agenda in terms of substance and the mandate of the IGF.
>
> The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, adopted at the Tunis Phase
> of WSIS, highlights the importance of multilingualism for bridging the
> digital divide.
>
>    - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C2
>    - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C3
>    - WSIS Tunis Agenda Action Line C8
>
> 7.      List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
> organized in the past.
>
> Not applicable. We would like to urge IGF secretariat to pay more
> attention to the proposals from newly participating members of the forum.
>
> 8.      Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did
> you submit a workshop report?
>
> Not applicable.
>
> 9.      Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
>
>    - Multiligualization
>    - Critical Internet Resources
>    - Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
>    - Arrangements for Internet Governance
>
> =========================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080430/9e77bff2/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.benedek at uni-graz.at  Wed Apr 30 14:58:24 2008
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:58:24 +0200
Subject: AW: [governance] IGF workshops
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425CBB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <20080428162314.E701867AAD@smtp1.electricembers.net> <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC787@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8425CBB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <F2D773BD668B0B4E8465849B4F21E7510330B8A4@leto.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>

Dear colleagues,

I can hardly cope with the heavy traffic, but would like to express my agreement and second the proposal by Wolfgang Kleinwächter.

Best regards

Wolfgang Benedek



Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen
Institute for International Law and International Relations
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Universitätsstraße 15, A4
A-8010 Graz
Tel.: +43 316 380 3411
Fax.: +43 316 380 9455 


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. April 2008 10:53
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Betreff: AW: [governance] IGF workshops

Milton has put forward  the right arguments. I also support the four workshops. I would consider a 5th proposal, dealing with consumer/user rights (including privacy and right to freedom of expression). It could be part of the "Right´s  Agenda" but should be more focused on the individual rights of consumers/users. 
 
Wolfgang (back from the hospital but still handicpapped after a complicated and painful operation in my left shoulder which explains my silence over the last days)   

________________________________

Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Mo 28.04.2008 23:35
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF workshops




>
> 1. The Transboundary Internet: Jurisdiction, Control and Sovereignty

I support this as a caucus proposal. I would urge the group involved to
be sure to add a speaker who is explicitly "anti-sovereign" or
"globalist" in outlook to provide balance on the panel. I am sure there
will be no shortage of people taking the other view.

>
> 2. The Future of ICANN: After the JPA, What?

I hope others will express their support for this one. Obviously I think
its a good idea. One new development: Stefano Trumpy of Italy has agreed
to participate, and we have established a promising connection to a
major private sector registrar who will probably also participate. I
have one (count 'em) volunteer from this list. We badly need developing
country perspectives on this panel, imho.

> 3. A Rights Agenda for Internet Governance

I strongly support the idea of this workshop and believe in its
potential value. Although there were disagreements aired on the issues
it will raise, the long and substantive discussion proves that RAIG is
precisely the kind of topic that needs to be "worked out" in a
"work"shop. My main concern would be that the organizers of this panel
NOT pretend that there is a unified conception of rights underlying our
approach to the Internet, and especially that we do not pretend that
there is a unified civil society position. I would ask this organizing
group to pay careful attention to finding and including ideologically
diverse viewpoints on the panel. Understand also that the highly diverse
views will require careful time management, if one is to achieve full
engagement.

>
> 4. The role and mandate of the IGF
>

Strongly support the idea; the level of realization here seems less
developed, no list of sponsors or invited speakers. However, the
longstanding support for this concept within IGC, going back to last
year or even before, makes it a no-brainer. I would ask the organizers
to remove the word "overreaching" from the phrase "...contain the
overreaching ambitions of those who would transform it..." near the end,
as it seems less than impartial.

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

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


From gurstein at gmail.com  Wed Apr 30 15:28:22 2008
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:28:22 -0700
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC7B3@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <000401c8aaf8$61bac2e0$6400a8c0@michael78xnoln>


The issue seems to me to be one of intent and outcome...

If there is a feeling that the intent of the NomCom was somehow in question
leading to an illegitimate outcome or that the outcome was somehow
illegitimate because of some other failing in the process then by all means
things should be "redone"...

If neither of these cases hold and it is simply a matter of fallible (and
time and resource constrained) volunteers not following a somewhat unclear
process to the letter then I would very strongly agree with Milton to
declare victory and move on... Many more, and rather more material battles
to be fought in the future, rather than wasting scarce resources on what
seems to be little more than a procedural exercise...

MG (declaring a conflict as one of 15 nominated by the NomCom...

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: April 30, 2008 10:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Meryem Marzouki
Subject: RE: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.



I disagree. The gain is minimal, the opportunities for further trouble
large, and the amount of energy expended could better be spent on other
things. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> 
> We have an unexpected opportunity to make our
> process more transparent and compliant with out own charter. 
> We can't afford leaving room to disputes if this is avoidable.

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

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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 15:42:56 2008
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:42:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
In-Reply-To: <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
References: <20080430134436.1126FE04A7@smtp3.electricembers.net> <FDAA01D9-C3C3-4B2B-B885-A77C5D5FD361@ras.eu.org> <48189C7F.3010206@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <7663C7E01D8E094989CA62F0B0D21CD9011DC7B9@SUEXCL-02.ad.syr.edu>

Right, I think Carlos has hit the right tone here. The caucus has no real decision making authority over MAG selections. The impact of a re-do on the ultimate selections made (alas) behind the scenes would be marginal at best. We are squabbling over crumbs, really. And agree with Gurstein that unless we think the nomcom really made serious errors, this is pointless. 

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos Afonso [mailto:ca at rits.org.br] 
> 
> The secretariat's announcement seems to be an indication of 
> the bloody 
> (internecine and otherwise) struggles going on behind curtains to 
> dispute the very few places in the MAG. As a person who has 
> participated 
> in this process formally or informally since the beginning of 
> the WSIS 
> process in general and the WGIG in particular, I think aloud: is it 
> really worth it beyond the personal imagery and added CV lines?
> 
> In any case, our region has done its job as much as it could, 
> indicating 
> five names. Let us see what the outcome of this imbroglio will be...
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> > Parminder, all,
> > 
> > Why hurry?
> > Francis has just posted a message informing us that "the 
> secretariat is 
> > going to announce shortly a call for candidates for the MAG in 
> > conditions that would be clearly enunciated. A delay of one 
> month should 
> > be given between the official call and the response to 
> call, leaving a 
> > decent time for various constituencies to propose  their slate of 
> > candidates."
> > Given all the comments and critics made so far on the 
> process, including 
> > with regards to IGC charter, we might now have the 
> opportunity to allow 
> > ourselves some more time. I don't understand why we 
> shouldn't use this 
> > opportunity.
> > Best,
> > Meryem
> > 
> > Le 30 avr. 08 à 15:44, Parminder a écrit :
> > 
> >>
> >>
> >> It is unfortunate that Robert is not able to give time to 
> this at this
> >> point, and I thank him for his work in the nomcom.
> >>
> >> Ian has agreed to take up chairship and will bring the 
> nomcom process 
> >> to a
> >> closure. The list will be with the IGF secretariat by end 
> of tomorrow, 
> >> the
> >> 1st.
> >>
> >> Parminder
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists at privaterra.info]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:36 AM
> >>> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> >>> Subject: [governance] Stepping down as IGC 08 Nomcom chair.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I tried best I could when I had time to work on bringing 
> the nomcom to
> >>> some kind of closure. The traffic over the last week is - 
> well, is far
> >>> too much for me to handle in this moment in time for me.
> >>>
> >>> So, having contributed my input, funds to make the 
> conference calls
> >>> possible, and technical assistance to make the nomcom 
> wiki and mailing
> >>> list possible - i respectfully resign effective immediately as IGC
> >>> nomcom chair due to inability to contribute the time, energy and
> >>> effort needed.
> >>>
> >>> I will work with whom ever the nomcom chooses as its new chair to
> >>> complete remaining tasks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> regards
> >>>
> >>> Robert Guerra
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ____________________________________________________________
> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>
> >>> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> > 
> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > 
> > 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send 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 30 16:32:29 2008
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 06:32:29 +1000
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess
Message-ID: <017501c8ab01$56433060$8b00a8c0@IAN>

Folks, 

 

You will have now received news of Robert Guerra’s resignation as 2008
NomCom Chair because of his time availability in recent weeks and the
foreseeable future. During the time he was available, Robert did a
tremendous job in setting up Wikis, arranging meetings, dealing with issues,
and carrying the business of the NomCom forward. We should all be thankful.
And I for one wish circumstances had allowed us to continue through to the
end under his leadership. I feel a little like stepping into a mine field
taking on this task at this stage and only do so because completion is
necessary.

 

Robert’s involvement got us to the point of publication of a slate of
candidates, after which Robert (as preannounced to us) needed to devote time
to other activities. However, due to this the publication was rushed and a
processing error occurred as regards status of one nominee. A member of the
NomCom immediately informed the Co-ordinators and asked that sending the
list to MAG Secretariat be delayed until the issue was clarified.

 

The Co-ordinators honoured that request to give time for the NomCom to
finalise its recommendations. However, a week has elapsed since then and
Robert has, due to previous engagements, been out of contact. In the
circumstances, and because writing the report and gaining consensus on its
format is also a considerable task yet to be undertaken, Robert felt it was
in everyone’s best interest that he resign as Chair, but thankfully has
agreed to participate in reviewing the report and finalizing our business.

 

In the circumstances, and after some discussion among NomCom members in the
intervening period, I can now announce that the name of Carlos Affonso
Pereira de Souza should be included on the list. The final slate is as
follows and can now be forwarded to MAG Secretariat. Please note that the
order of candidates in each region is alphabetical and indicates no
particular preference.

 

For those less familiar with the process, this is a list which will be
considered by the MAG Secretariat along with other inputs. We cannot
determine who the members finally chosen will be, we can only recommend.

 

Africa

 

Dawit Bekele (since withdrawn)

Ken Lohento

Natasha Primo

 

 

Asia

 

Izumi Aizu

Iffat Rose Gill

Y. J. Park

Adam Peake

 

 

Europe

 

Vittorio Bertola

William Drake

Jeanette Hofmann

 

LAC

 

Valeria Betancourt

Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza

Graciela Selaimen

 

North America

Robin Gross

Michael Gurstein

Milton Mueller

 

Our remaining business is the NomCom Report. There are quite a few things
that need to be said and will be said, (one way or another ;-). But as work
will only commence on that today, and it is appropriate that all NomCom
members have the opportunity to participate and comment fully on it to
arrive at an agreed on draft, it will not be available until early next
week. I think it will address many of the issues that have been discussed
here and on which it would be inappropriate for me or other members of the
NomCom to comment at this stage.

 

This has been a robust NomCom committee. It has had vigorous debates
balancing substantially different perspectives. But it has been thorough and
dedicated in its work and determined to see the best outcomes for civil
society.

 

More with the report in the near future!

 

 

 

Ian Peter

Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd

PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

www.internetmark2.org

www.nethistory.info

 


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
11:35
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080501/d144da44/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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Wed Apr 30 18:51:19 2008
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 00:51:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] privacy workshop proposal for IGF 2008
Message-ID: <4818F7E7.3000901@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Hello,

FYI: A few members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy have submitted 
the following privacy workshop proposal for the IGF 2008.

We are still looking for panelists. Suggestions and volunteers are welcome.

Best, Ralf

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

1. Name of proposed workshop

"Policy aspects of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs)"

The workshop could fit under any of the following themes
* Managing the Internet (Using the Internet)
* Critical Internet resources
* Arrangements for Internet governance
* Global cooperation for Internet security and stability


2. Provide a concise description of the proposed workshop theme
including its importance and relevance to the IGF.

Technologies specifically designed to support privacy and data protection
in the information society have been researched for many years, and are
now gradually becoming deployed. The first part of the workshop will
provide a conceptual grounding for policymakers deliberating responses to
privacy threats and summarise recent advances in PET research. In the
second part of the workshop, a diverse panel of stakeholders will discuss
policy options for encouraging adoption of PETs, appropriate for various
privacy contexts, in an open dialogue with workshop participants.

The workshop is relevant for the IGF, because past experience shows that
many policymakers do not base their decisions on the latest knowledge of
privacy-enhanding technologies, especially those that enhance privacy and
security at the same time. (see the report from the workshop "Privacy in
Internet Identity Management: Emerging Issues and New Approaches" form
more information. This workshop is a follow-up to the Rio IGF in the sense
mentioned above.


4. Provide the name of the organizer(s) of the workshop and their
affiliation to various stakeholder groups. Describe how you will take
steps to adhere to the multi-stakeholder principle, geographical
diversity and gender balance.

* Caspar Bowden – Chief Privacy Adviser EMEA, Microsoft Technology Office
(business sector)
* Gus Hosein - Privacy International (civil society)
* Jan Schallaböck - data protection authority of Schleswig-Holstein,
Germany (government)
* Ralf Bendrath - Technical University Delft (academic community)
[Members of the Dynamic Privacy Coalition]

The organizers are from various stakeholder groups, and through the IGF
Dynamic Coalition on Privacy, they have working contacts to a wide network
of stakeholders from all world regions and genders.

Although the composition of the workshop presenters has not been
finalised, we will aim to ensure as far as possible that there is
diversity of representation by gender and geography, consistent with the
aim of providing the highest quality expertise available.


8. Were you part of organizing a workshop last year? Which one? Did you
submit a workshop report?

Some of us organized two workshops together with other members of the IGF
Dynamic Coalition on Privacy:
* Security and Privacy Challenges for new Internet Applications: A
Multi-stakeholder approach
* Privacy in Internet Identity Management: Emerging Issues and New Approaches

We have just submitted reports for both of them , as well as for the
meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Privacy.


7. List similar events you and/or any other IGF workshops you have
organized in the past.

The organizers have constantly been working in the field of internet
privacy and security for a number of years and have organized numerous
events. In the IGF context, the organizers were involved in organizing two
privacy workshops both at the IGF 2006 and the IGF 2007. They are also
active members or facilitators of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Privacy.


9. Under which of the five IGF themes does the proposal fall under ?
* access
* security
* emerging issues




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl. Pol. Ralf Bendrath
Technical University Delft, Netherlands
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Section ICT
Work: http://www.ict.tbm.tudelft.nl
Blog: http://bendrath.blogspot.com
Info: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath
PGP / GnuPG Public Key:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath/ralf-bendrath-public-key.asc

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

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


From iza at anr.org  Wed Apr 30 20:28:21 2008
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:28:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] Amended list of MAG Nominess
In-Reply-To: <017501c8ab01$56433060$8b00a8c0@IAN>
References: <017501c8ab01$56433060$8b00a8c0@IAN>
Message-ID: <a5509d940804301728p6f8e3bdfy69cfcf42fcf194a4@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Ian, Robert and all involved with the NomCom work,

I would like to share my appreciation for the great work of you guys,
not only because I was selected as one nominee, but because you had
done your best to carry out very difficult tasks for the entire
benefit of our caucus.

I hope we now can proceed to the next level of task forward with the
same level of energy and passion.

best,

izumi

2008/5/1 Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>:
>
>
>
>
> Folks,
>
>
>
> You will have now received news of Robert Guerra's resignation as 2008
> NomCom Chair because of his time availability in recent weeks and the
> foreseeable future. During the time he was available, Robert did a
> tremendous job in setting up Wikis, arranging meetings, dealing with issues,
> and carrying the business of the NomCom forward. We should all be thankful.
> And I for one wish circumstances had allowed us to continue through to the
> end under his leadership. I feel a little like stepping into a mine field
> taking on this task at this stage and only do so because completion is
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Robert's involvement got us to the point of publication of a slate of
> candidates, after which Robert (as preannounced to us) needed to devote time
> to other activities. However, due to this the publication was rushed and a
> processing error occurred as regards status of one nominee. A member of the
> NomCom immediately informed the Co-ordinators and asked that sending the
> list to MAG Secretariat be delayed until the issue was clarified.
>
>
>
> The Co-ordinators honoured that request to give time for the NomCom to
> finalise its recommendations. However, a week has elapsed since then and
> Robert has, due to previous engagements, been out of contact. In the
> circumstances, and because writing the report and gaining consensus on its
> format is also a considerable task yet to be undertaken, Robert felt it was
> in everyone's best interest that he resign as Chair, but thankfully has
> agreed to participate in reviewing the report and finalizing our business.
>
>
>
> In the circumstances, and after some discussion among NomCom members in the
> intervening period, I can now announce that the name of Carlos Affonso
> Pereira de Souza should be included on the list. The final slate is as
> follows and can now be forwarded to MAG Secretariat. Please note that the
> order of candidates in each region is alphabetical and indicates no
> particular preference.
>
>
>
> For those less familiar with the process, this is a list which will be
> considered by the MAG Secretariat along with other inputs. We cannot
> determine who the members finally chosen will be, we can only recommend.
>
>
>
> Africa
>
>
>
> Dawit Bekele (since withdrawn)
>
> Ken Lohento
>
> Natasha Primo
>
>
>
>
>
> Asia
>
>
>
> Izumi Aizu
>
> Iffat Rose Gill
>
> Y. J. Park
>
> Adam Peake
>
>
>
>
>
> Europe
>
>
>
> Vittorio Bertola
>
> William Drake
>
> Jeanette Hofmann
>
>
>
> LAC
>
>
>
> Valeria Betancourt
>
> Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
>
> Graciela Selaimen
>
>
>
> North America
>
> Robin Gross
>
> Michael Gurstein
>
> Milton Mueller
>
>
>
> Our remaining business is the NomCom Report. There are quite a few things
> that need to be said and will be said, (one way or another ;-). But as work
> will only commence on that today, and it is appropriate that all NomCom
> members have the opportunity to participate and comment fully on it to
> arrive at an agreed on draft, it will not be available until early next
> week. I think it will address many of the issues that have been discussed
> here and on which it would be inappropriate for me or other members of the
> NomCom to comment at this stage.
>
>
>
> This has been a robust NomCom committee. It has had vigorous debates
> balancing substantially different perspectives. But it has been thorough and
> dedicated in its work and determined to see the best outcomes for civil
> society.
>
>
>
> More with the report in the near future!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ian Peter
>
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
>
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
> www.internetmark2.org
>
> www.nethistory.info
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1407 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
> 11:35
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>  You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>  To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>  For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 
 >> Izumi Aizu <<

 Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita
 Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo
 Japan
 * * * * *
 << Writing the Future of the History >>
 www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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