[governance] IGF workshops-Rights To/On the Internet
Meryem Marzouki
marzouki at ras.eu.org
Tue Apr 29 12:49:43 EDT 2008
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list